Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

[Tom Lane]

Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?

                        regards, tom lane