Hi, Wolfgang, If all free java sdks implement jdbc3, I don't see any real reason to provide jdbc2 builds at all. AFAIK, JDBC standards are meant to be compatible for older clients, so every jdbc2 app should work fine against jdbc3 implementations.
Alternatively, what do you think about having a libpg-jdbc3-java and libpg-jdbc2-java, the first one beeing in main. We could then obsolete libpg-java and make it a virtual package depending on both of them, this would also solve bug #275417 in an elegant way :-) > I had success with using gcj-3.4 as it's based on an older gnu classpath > release. Maybe try against gcj-3.3 or gcj-3.4 - don't know at which > JDBC level they are. Give them a try :-) Okay, I'll do so. But this might lead into a difficult build environment setup including conflicts etc. :-( Markus -- Markus Schaber - http://schabi.de/ But hey!, Standard compliance is something we should strive for, so let's try and change the Standard :-) [Alexandre Oliva, GCC Developer]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
