Joe Orton <jorton@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 11:58:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Uh ... why are these being compared? > Just because they're both there. It is intentional that two different > versions of this library are being shipped (and in one package)? [ squints... ] Good question --- it's intentional on upstream's part, but the .1 .so is for Postgres 7.1 which we haven't supported for a long time. Probably could lose it. Actually I've been thinking of stripping both the pgsql and mysql drivers from unixODBC, because there are more up-to-date versions shipped as separate packages. > Also, regarding: > Clashes for /usr/lib/libodbcminiS.so.1.0.0: > is it correct that all these libraries must only ever be used indirectly > via libodbc (which will dlopen them) - and no app may link directly > against them? Yeah; in fact they all *have* to define conflicting symbols because that's the ABI they're supposed to present to libodbc. > If so they can go on the whitelist, but they should not > really be in /usr/lib to start with; dlopen-able modules should go in > /usr/lib/<somedirectory>. This has come up before, but the problem is that it'd break existing user-written odbcinst.ini files. I'm not convinced it's worth that. regards, tom lane -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
