On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:33:08 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote: > > >I don't think so. Just for the record, SQLite 3.1.2 is the first stable > > > version of the v3 series. > > > > yeah even upstreams 3.1.5 release seems to be affected according to to > > some ongoing testing by some people on irc. Appearently there has been > > a change in the allowed sql syntax. Considering that 3.1.x is suppose > > to be backwards compatible with the 3.0.x series, this feels like an > > upstream bug to me. Poking at the upstream bugzilla i see similar > > issues regard some syntax regressions but not the exact problem being > > experienced here. It could be a bug.. or it could be a configurable > > syntax parsing rule issue. > > > > > Interestingly, the sqlite package now upgrades sqlite 2.8.16 from Fedora > > > Extras. This creates a jump from libsqlite.so to libsqlite3.so and > > > breaks ABI and API > > > > Yeah thats a little added wrinkle for sure, consider this a wonderful > > multiversion test case for Fedora Extras packaging guidelines. > > > > -jef"names have been withheld to protect the innocent"spaleta > > Then who should provide the sqlite-compat? extras (it won't be compat > for fc3)? base? Or maybe its time to consider naming it sqlite3 and > sqlite2... Well, it started as sqlite3, with good reason. Look: -rwxr-xr-x root root 29844 /usr/bin/sqlite3 lrwxrwxrwx root root 19 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0 -rwxr-xr-x root root 316204 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6 -rw-r--r-- root root 52690 /usr/include/sqlite3.h -rw-r--r-- root root 403624 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.a -rwxr-xr-x root root 819 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.la lrwxrwxrwx root root 19 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so -rw-r--r-- root root 231 /usr/lib/pkgconfig/sqlite3.pc Sure, the v2 sqlite package could be rename to sqlite0 or sqlite2 if it will still be needed. But that's not the point.
