From: | teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Date: | 2000-10-27 19:03:33 |
Message-ID: | xuyzojqt8ca.fsf@hoser.devel.redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-27 19:15:58 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 19:01:31 | Re: timestamp? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-10-27 19:10:12 | Re: Idea: cross-check versions during initdb |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 19:01:21 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-27 19:15:58 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 19:01:21 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |