Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> * Do we bump the .so major version number for libpq? I think we should >>> because there are two new exported functions since 8.2, and on at least >>> some platforms there's nothing else than major number to disambiguate >>> whether a client needs these or not. Comments?
> Bumping the soname is an indication of a binary-incompatible change and > means that old binaries *can't* link against the new library, and so > everything has to be recompiled. Please don't do that unless it really > is a binary-incompatible change because it's alot of extra work for > packagers to deal with all of their reverse dependencies and getting > everyone to recompile. It's not only a question of whether old binaries can use the newer library; it's a question of whether a package's dependencies correctly show that it needs the newer library (if it does). Without this, dependency-solving update systems like yum, apt, etc may fail to install prerequisite updates. If we can skip the compatibility-package pushup this time around, I'll be as happy as anyone. But I'm worried about getting into the kind of mess we had in 8.0, where we decided *after* release that we needed a soname bump :-( Anyone on -packagers want to weigh in on this? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster