On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:00AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > The way this worked in the past (and still does on RHEL and some other > distros) is that MySQL AB provided RPMs named "MySQL", "MySQL-server", > etc, which simply conflicted with the Red Hat-supplied packages named > "mysql", "mysql-server", etc. Perhaps it would be best to continue that > naming tradition, ie establish a new Oracle-maintained Fedora package > named "MySQL", instead of figuring out how to transition maintainership > of the "mysql" packages. This would give us some more wiggle room about > managing the transition --- in particular, it's hard to see how we > manage Obsoletes/Provides linkages in any sane fashion if the "mysql" > package name continues in use. I think we're going to have to end up > with a design in which "mysql" becomes essentially a virtual Provides > name. > I'm quite amazed at how MariaDB is allowed to do this takeover of mysql in fedora. Why can't MariaDB use it's own configuration files, own datadir, own socket, own binary names, etc.. ? I'm no Oracle or Mysql fan, but as far as I see it Oracle/mysql is the original branch of the mysql project, and I think a competing fork should do it's best not to conflict with it. No effort not to conflict seems to be happening here, rather the opposite. What happens when MariaDB and Mysql start diverging? Will it be impossible to have a client that connects to both mysql and mariadb servers ? -jf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
