Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> 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)).
You link against libpq.so.2 , not libpq.so.2.1. This isn't a problem.
> If the RPM stuff has arbitrarily decided that it won't honor that
> definition, why do we bother with multiple numbers at all?
There is no such problem.
> > 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?
If there isn't any changes, why bump it?
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.