David Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 16:16 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote: >> I think this is excellent timing. I'm no database guru but with my >> crystal ball I foresee MySQL requiring some form of attention in the >> near future. :) >> > This may be, though I'm not an expert on the MySQL project/diaspora. > FWIW I've added links to MariaDB and to Drizzle to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dmalcolm/DatabaseSoftware#RDBMS ; > but I'm not planning to package them personally. > Should these be packaged yet? My (personal) opinion here is to defer to > Tom Lane's judgment on these things (MySQL maintainer for Fedora; CCed); > it may be fun to package them, but maybe it's too early? I guess they'd > have to be separate, parallel installs, I wouldn't want them to > destabilize the main MySQL packages. First off, +1 for a database SIG --- I didn't respond earlier because I didn't wish to muddy your sample, but I'm in. As for the mysql situation, for the moment I want to keep packaging "official" mysql, defined as "whatever mysql.com is shipping". If Oracle screws things up sufficiently (which I consider well within the realm of possibility) then that will have to be revisited, but for the moment I just want to wait and see. I don't personally have the bandwidth or interest to package a bunch of mysql forks, but if anyone else wants to pick up maintainership of some of them, I have no objection. We'd have to consider however whether a package of a fork could coexist with the "standard" mysql packages. I suppose a few Conflicts: directives would solve the problem if not, but it'd sure be more convenient if they could coexist, or at the very least share the same client-side packages. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
