On mardi, 11 mars 2025 03.21:13 h heure normale d’Europe centrale Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 18:08 +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > This should allow a software build against rhel libpq-devel to be
> > satisfied with pgdg packaged libpq
>
> I don't think so. I think Red Hat adds a small patch to libpq package:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libpq/blob/rawhide/f/libpq-12.1-symbol-ve
> rsioning.patch
>
> <rant>PGDG packages are PostgreSQL compatible. Red Hat packages are Red
> Hat compatible.</rant>
>
> > bareos-dir: /usr/pgsql-14/lib/libpq.so.5: no version information
> > available (required by /usr/lib64/bareos/libbareossql.so.24)
>
> That said, IIRC this message means bareos did not build their packages
> against our libpq.
>
> -HTH
>
> Regards,
Here the situation, if I didn't explain it correctly.
We (Bareos dev's team) build our software on what's distributed by the OS editor. which means for RHEL9 libpq5-devel 13.20 (rhel)
From time to time people want (for good reasons :-) ) use pgdg binaries,
if you go that way libpq from pgdg is installed and as the rpm provides all RH symbol you will get only this.
The problem is: if the rpm provides the symbol the pgdg libpq build is not providing them. As such any software that try to use that "pseudo" compatible lib doesn't find the searched symbol and emit in the least worse case a warning.
I (we) believe that the patch now included in fedora, is the way to go, if 100% ABI compatible is still a moto for pgdg.
Please no offense on that, it's just really better for either consumer of pgdg software in redhat/rpm world whatever they are: software editor, end users.
Regards.
--
Bruno Friedmann
Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch
expertise en open-source
GPG KEY: E4720D8715B696B4
irc: tigerfoot
Computing freedom with openSUSE Tumbleweed - 20250307
Linux 6.13.5-1-default x86_64 GNU/Linux, nvidia:
, , Plasma: 6.3.2, kmail2 6.3.3 (24.12.3)
