Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød)
Subject Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Date
Msg-id xuyzojqt8ca.fsf@hoser.devel.redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)  (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
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)).
> 
> Now, that doesn't directly effect the PostgreSQL RPM's.  What it does
> effect is the guy who wants to install PHP from  with PostgreSQL support
> enabled and cannot because of a failed dependency. Who gets blamed?
> PostgreSQL.
> 
> Trond may correct me on this, but I don't know of a workaround for
> this. 

There usually are no such problems, and I'm not aware of any specific
to postgresql either.

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR