Now, the problem with 8.0.2/8.0.3 is that we forgot to bump the soname
before shipping 8.0, so we shipped a bogus libpq.so.3 which is really
libpq.so.4, with a wrong soname. How to fix? Maybe we should provide a
libpq3 package with the libraries coming from the REL_7_4_STABLE cvs
branch.
I was ju
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday 20 May 2005 09:43, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > 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
Hi,
-- Original Message ---
> Now, the problem with 8.0.2/8.0.3 is that we forgot to bump the
> soname before shipping 8.0, so we shipped a bogus libpq.so.3 which
> is really libpq.so.4, with a wrong soname. How to fix? Maybe we
> should provide a libpq3 package with the li
On Friday 20 May 2005 09:43, Dave Cramer wrote:
> 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 numb
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 09:43:50AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> OK, so how do we fix this ?
I don't know what is Redhat's standard practice, but in other RPM based
distributions what is done is to distribute each library as its own
package, using the soname as part of the package name (Debian also
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 bec
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 th
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 ?
Dave
Volkan YAZICI wrote:
Hi,
On 5/19/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
8.0.2 and up should provide/require libp
Hi,
On 5/19/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 8.0.2 and up should provide/require libpq.so.4 and so on. Apparently
> there is something broken with this set of RPMs.
For futher of the discussion:
http://lists.pgfoundry.org/pipermail/pgsqlrpms-hackers/2005-April/000197.html
-
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a customer with the following error.
> rpm -Uvh *.rpm
> warning: postgresql-8.0.2-1PGDG.i686.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key
> ID 748f7d0e
> error: Failed dependencies:
>libpq.so.3 is needed by postgresql-contrib-8.0.2-1PGDG
>libec
10 matches
Mail list logo
