X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:47:57 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: postgresql: libpq4 and libpq5 collide Message-ID: <20080721134757.GB5251@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <48843ED4 DOT 7000506 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <6910a60807210515o11b91eacwa45558fd8f4f20c6 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6910a60807210515o11b91eacwa45558fd8f4f20c6@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Jul 21 14:15, Reini Urban wrote: > 2008/7/21 Yaakov (Cygwin Ports): > > Both libpq4 and libpq5 contain the same /usr/bin/cygpq.dll file. > > setup.exe cannot handle a file coming from more than one package; this > > is bound to cause problems. > > Yes, I did this on purpose, resp. all the libpq packagers don't > version their so's. > The postgresql team does not like versioned so's. > Version 5 contains all the backwards compatible functions from version 4. > > I see no technical problems with setup. > First uninstall (remove it), the install (installs the new, which is the same). > > Oops. You mean when you want to install both and then uninstall libpq4? > Hmm, maybe a preremove script for libpq4 is needed therefore. > But this does not help. > Or just a re-install of libpq5. > > Probably best is to remove libpq4 when installing libpq5. > Can setup handle this? No. Hmm... I think the basic problem is that two versioned libs exist (4, 5), even though no versioning is provided, nor necessary. The versioning is only required as soon as backward compatibility is broken by the new lib version. This isn't the case, so libpq4 should never have been created in the first place, rather just a libpq. Since libpq4 exists now, I think the right thing to do would be to use this name until a new lib version breaks backward compatibility. Then it's time for a libpq>4 and the DLL in it should start to use versioning, too. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/