Re: 8.02 rpm error

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Volkan YAZICI <volkan(dot)yazici(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.02 rpm error
Date: 2005-05-20 11:55:05
Message-ID: 428DD019.6000401@fastcrypt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Berend Tober 2005-05-20 12:29:21 Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re:
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-05-20 11:21:02 Re: Notification when freespaces empty