Am 15.02.2013 14:10, schrieb Jan-Frode Myklebust: > 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? exactly that may happen but Fedora is not interested in the long future, Fedora decisions are for now and with luck tomorrow
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
