Thread: 8.02 rpm error
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 libecpg.so.4 is needed by postgresql-libs-8.0.2-1PGDG libpgtypes.so.1 is needed by postgresql-libs-8.0.2-1PGDG libpq.so.3 is needed by postgresql-libs-8.0.2-1PGDG Suggested resolutions: rh-postgresql-libs-7.3.8-2.i386.rpm Has anyone else experienced this ? Is there a solution? Dave
Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> 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
> libecpg.so.4 is needed by postgresql-libs-8.0.2-1PGDG
> libpgtypes.so.1 is needed by postgresql-libs-8.0.2-1PGDG
> libpq.so.3 is needed by postgresql-libs-8.0.2-1PGDG
> Suggested resolutions:
> rh-postgresql-libs-7.3.8-2.i386.rpm
8.0.2 and up should provide/require libpq.so.4 and so on. Apparently
there is something broken with this set of RPMs.
regards, tom lane
Hi, On 5/19/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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
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 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > >
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 the upstream release process. The RPMset has worked around this in the past by providing fake previous versions; but it is just an ugly workaround of broken upstream behavior. This is not a new issue, unfortunately. That is, symlinks were provided to the new version of the library that masqueraded as previous versions, but weren't really previous versions. That can cause it's own broken behavior. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
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 because libpq versioning has always been an afterthought in the upstream >release process. The RPMset has worked around this in the past by providing >fake previous versions; but it is just an ugly workaround of broken upstream >behavior. This is not a new issue, unfortunately. > >That is, symlinks were provided to the new version of the library that >masqueraded as previous versions, but weren't really previous versions. That >can cause it's own broken behavior. > >
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 do it this way AFAIK). So we would have a package called, say, libpq3 which would contain only libpq.so.3 (and associated files, if any). The benefit is that people who needs to upgrade to a later version of the server can have both libpq4 and libpq3 installed, with libpq4 being used for the new frontends and libpq3 is kept around for programs that are linked to it, say PHP if you don't want to recompile it. 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. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>) "El sudor es la mejor cura para un pensamiento enfermo" (Bardia)
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 number up > >> ? > >Only because libpq versioning has always been an afterthought in the > > upstream release process. > OK, so how do we fix this ? Any time a change is made to libpq that changes its exported symbols or ABI a version change needs to be made. The person committing the change that impacts the ABI needs to be the person responsible for changing the version number; otherwise someone needs to monitor libpq changes coming down committers and remind people when they need to bump the libpq major or minor so version. Further, any time a release is being built one of the top things on the checklist should be 'is libpq's soname appropriate or not?' Changing past releases is impossible and must be worked around, which is quite honestly ugly to do. The cleanest thing, yet painful as it is, is to simply not provide the .3 at all and people will just have to rebuild all their clients. This gives a clean break; no, we can't fix 8.0.0, but we can fix from this point forward. People will complain, loudly, when it's broken; but which is better? Forcing a clean break with one-time pain, or having pain every single 8.0.x release? This situation should really drive home the importance of being careful! Basically it boils down to being more careful when piping out a release. PostgreSQL is no longer an island where we depend on OS services and few people depend on us; rather, libpq in particular is becoming a core component of distributions all around, and thus libpq must be very carefully maintained as a result; we have to, pardon the pun, watch our p-q's. Too many other projects are depending upon the soname in libpq to indicate the exported interface. And, where exported interfaces vary according to compile-time options, we need to change the soname based on the options (such as SSL versus non-SSL builds). And we must be consistent in the versioning; people tend to expect minor version upgrades to not break things, and 8.0.1 broke things. The discussion on why the version was bumped this time is in the archives; people are now fighting a battle with that decision. The decision to bump the version of libpq was the correct one to make; it just should have been made before 8.0 was released and not after. But all this discussion is in the archives; I would suggest browsing those threads. The fftw3 library provides a reasonable model with which to work; there are multiple compile-time options there that dramatically change the ABI (things like integer versus single-precision float versus double-precision float), and the route the fftw3 developers have taken is to make separate names for each. This way OS linking and dependency resolution isn't broken arbitrarily because otherwise there is no way of communicating to the linkloader which ABI we're exporting today. And I've made enough release piping errors to recognize one.... :-) -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
Hi, ---------- Original Message ----------- <snip> > 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* working on a compatibility RPM this week. However, I'm now on a Linux and Open Source Festival in Turkey and will be able to release the first compat RPM next week. Regards, -- Devrim GUNDUZ devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.tdmsoft.com.tr http://www.gunduz.org
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-1) whenever you bump the number up > > >> ? > > > >Only because libpq versioning has always been an afterthought in the > > > upstream release process. > > > OK, so how do we fix this ? > > Any time a change is made to libpq that changes its exported symbols or ABI a > version change needs to be made. The person committing the change that > impacts the ABI needs to be the person responsible for changing the version > number; otherwise someone needs to monitor libpq changes coming down > committers and remind people when they need to bump the libpq major or minor > so version. Further, any time a release is being built one of the top things > on the checklist should be 'is libpq's soname appropriate or not?' What hit us in this case is the movement of a function (get_progname()) from libpq to pgport and now that certain binary applications were pulling get_progname from libpq rather than pgport. So the API didn't really change, just the place applications looked for symbols. What also hit us is that people complaining about this during beta testing were told just to recompile (which fixed it), but we didn't realize that it prevented installs of 7.4 from working. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
> > 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 just thinking about this today. Typically Redhat will have a postgresql-libs-compat which would contain libpq.so.3. They haven't had to do this in the past with PostgreSQL but they do it with others such as glibc. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/