Hi! Bruce Momjian [2005-06-15 15:26 -0400]: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > The 'bind' calles in the binaries are going to look for the proper > > > version. Does that help, or is libpq the only thing we need to > > > handle? > > > > Shared libraries have their version number embedded in the file name for > > the explicit purpose of installing more than one version side by side. > > Therefore, the PO files also need to make arrangements for side by side > > installation. No such promises are made for non-library files. > > OK, seems we need examples of how our current setup fails, both for > libpq and binaries.
Debian's and Ubuntu's packages currently look like this (binary -> translation domain): /usr/lib/libpq3.so: libpq3 /usr/lib/libpq4.so: libpq4 /usr/lib/postgresql/7.4/bin/postmaster: postgres-7.4 /usr/lib/postgresql/8.0/bin/postmaster: postgres-8.0 /usr/lib/postgresql/7.4/bin/psql: psql-7.4 /usr/lib/postgresql/8.0/bin/psql: psql-8.0 [similar for all other client binaries) Without my domain patches, i. e. with upstream's scheme it would look like: /usr/lib/libpq3.so: libpq /usr/lib/libpq4.so: libpq /usr/lib/postgresql/7.4/bin/postmaster: postgres /usr/lib/postgresql/8.0/bin/postmaster: postgres As you see, there is a conflict, so to be able to install both pacakges at the same time, one translation version had to be picked and stuffed into a separate -translations package, which both versions depend on. That's ugly and would cause one version to have some missing translations, therefore I patched the domains to be version-specific. I do think that adopting my scheme at least for libpq really makes sense. Adopting it for the binaries would not do any harm, but it might not be conformant to your packaging policy, which I don't really know. The clashing domains are the only things that prevents the parallel installation of different major versions, so the question whether or not you want to adopt it mainly boils down to whether you want to support parallel server installations. I am grateful that you did the SONAME change upstream, that relieved Debian and probably other vendors of much pain. OTOH, the Debian specific translation domain changes are really simple and don't impose a significant maintenance overhead, so there is no urgency at all. Thanks and have a nice day! Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
Description: Digital signature