Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

[Trond Eivind Glomsrød]

Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)).

You link against libpq.so.2 , not libpq.so.2.1. This isn't a problem.

> If the RPM stuff has arbitrarily decided that it won't honor that
> definition, why do we bother with multiple numbers at all?

There is no such problem.
 
> > So, PostgreSQL 7.1 is slated to be libpq.so.2.2, then?
> 
> To answer your question, there are no pending changes in libpq that
> would mandate a major version bump (ie, nothing binary-incompatible,
> AFAIK).  We could ship it with the exact same version number, but then
> how are people to tell whether they have a 7.0 or 7.1 libpq?

If there isn't any changes, why bump it? 
-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.