> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > Unfortunately RPM deems a dependency upon libpq.so.2.0 to not be
> > fulfilled by libpq.so.2.1 (how _can_ it know? A client linked to 2.0
> > might fail if 2.1 were to be loaded under it (hypothetically)).
>
> If so, I claim RPM is broken.
>
> The whole point of major/minor version numbering for .so's is that
> a minor version bump is supposed to be binary-upward-compatible.
> If the RPM stuff has arbitrarily decided that it won't honor that
> definition, why do we bother with multiple numbers at all?
>
> > So, PostgreSQL 7.1 is slated to be libpq.so.2.2, then?
>
> To answer your question, there are no pending changes in libpq that
> would mandate a major version bump (ie, nothing binary-incompatible,
> AFAIK). We could ship it with the exact same version number, but then
> how are people to tell whether they have a 7.0 or 7.1 libpq?
Yes, we need to have new numbers so binaries from different releases use
the proper .so files.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026