OK, so how do we fix this ?
Dave
Lamar Owen wrote:
>On Friday 20 May 2005 07:55, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>>Well, there's not much discussion here. Other than the fact that a few
>>things depend on libpq.so.3.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Isn't the standard to keep libpq.so.(n-1) whenever you bump the number up ?
>>
>>
>
>Only because libpq versioning has always been an afterthought in the upstream
>release process. The RPMset has worked around this in the past by providing
>fake previous versions; but it is just an ugly workaround of broken upstream
>behavior. This is not a new issue, unfortunately.
>
>That is, symlinks were provided to the new version of the library that
>masqueraded as previous versions, but weren't really previous versions. That
>can cause it's own broken behavior.
>
>