| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |