Re: starting out

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Phil Howard <phil-pgsql-general(at)ipal(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: starting out
Date: 2003-02-11 17:43:18
Message-ID: 26755.1044985398@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Phil Howard <phil-pgsql-general(at)ipal(dot)net> writes:
> Well, this isn't exactly what I wanted, but it gets me rolling and
> confirms I pinpointed the problem in OpenSSL. I really want it to
> reference the major version number. But that is version 0, not 2
> as Redhat seems to have.

[looks at rpm specfile...] No, the reason Red Hat is using 2 is that
the openssl boys have repeatedly broken binary compatibility without
incrementing their major version number as they ought. At the moment
I find in the Rawhide version

# For the curious:
# 0.9.5a soversion = 0
# 0.9.6 soversion = 1
# 0.9.6a soversion = 2
# 0.9.6c soversion = 3
# 0.9.7 soversion = 4
%define soversion 4

If you are concerned about making the .so version number actually
useful, I recommend you follow Red Hat's lead.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-11 17:45:08 Re: mailing list archives
Previous Message Cristian Custodio 2003-02-11 17:35:27 Fw: Priority against catalog