Subject: Re: Cygwin linking rules
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <1056.1538235347@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <86419508-9d36-36a9-93ff-2a051af7d2e4@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <f82cc25e-3404-33b1-3a7b-93e5130e188e@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <257c24fc-effb-871d-4529-e3ff2ea0d436@gmail.com>
 <fda91d8a-93ae-d7a5-a555-4a88d5783f36@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <27791.1538500041@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d45aed44-ba15-7e22-7a3e-4ab312b18ab5@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 21:20:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <27791.1538500041@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Am 02.10.2018 um 19:07 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 09/29/2018 02:13 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>> [ proposed patch ]
> 
>> Yes. So there are a couple of things here. First, the dll has
>> SO_MAJORVERSION in the name. And second it stops building any static
>> libraries and instead builds windows import libraries with names like
>> lippq.a.
> 
> I'm pretty much -1 on adding SO_MAJORVERSION to the library names.
> It seems like it will cause churn to library users without really
> accomplishing much, because when was the last time we changed the
> SO_MAJORVERSION of anything?
> 
> I'd suggest that if we ever do change libpq's SO_MAJORVERSION,
> that would be the time to append the suffix (so we'd go from libpq.dll
> to libpq-6.dll).  For now, let's not fix what isn't broken.

On cygwin the library is cygpq-5.dll by long time;
around 2013 with 9.2.x we standardized to have the
SO_MAJORVERSION in the lib name as all the other
packages

https://cygwin.com/packages/x86_64/libpq5/libpq5-10.5-1

same as on Unix/Linux
https://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/libpq5/filelist


> However, the .a linking definitely is broken, and if this way
> of building fixes it, that's great.  I do not have the ability
> to test it, but we can throw it into the buildfarm to see what
> happens.
> 
>> I think we should apply this to HEAD. If it's not too late it would
>> probably be a good thing for release 11 - would need a release note.
> 
> I think it's too late for 11; we're too close to RC1, and besides
> the problem this is fixing doesn't seem to manifest before my
> recent port/common library changes.  (If that's not so, maybe it
> qualifies as a bug fix for back branches; but it seems rather
> high risk.)

No problem. It works for my cygwin package release
but I could have broken something around and it need to be tested.

> 			regards, tom lane

Regards
Marco

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus