On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:24:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi writes:
>
> Well, unixODBC 2.2.14 isn't going to change anymore, so I don't really
> think that end of it would be adding instability. In any case, if we
> get to the point of doing a Fedora release before upstream gets
Toshio Kuratomi writes:
> Sounds like this is just going to occur for RawHide, right? With that in
> mind
Right, no intention of changing unixODBC in released branches.
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:22:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a couple of ways I could go about it:
>> 1. Inclu
Sounds like this is just going to occur for RawHide, right? With that in
mind
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:22:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> There are a couple of ways I could go about it:
>
> 1. Include the older tarball in the SRPM for unixODBC, and just build it
> in a subdirectory, and then
I've been getting some requests lately to update unixODBC to 2.3.x from
the 2.2.14 that we currently ship. AFAICT, the core interface libraries
are ABI-compatible so dropping in the new versions shouldn't be much of
a problem. The sticky part is that upstream decided to separate into
two projects
