On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dne Čt 24. ledna 2013 12:24:33, drago01 napsal(a): >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> > I quote from the feature page: >> > >> > "Recent changes made by Oracle indicate they are moving the MySQL >> > project to be more closed. They are no longer publishing any useful >> > information about security issues (CVEs), and they are not providing >> > complete regression tests any more, and a very large fraction of the >> > mysql bug database is now not public." >> > >> > Do you dispute the truth of any of these statements? If you accept them >> > as truthful, do you consider them insignificant? If so, why? >> >> The reply from Andrew renders this moot. > > really? > > how does that reply provide the missing informations that Adam points out? I doubt that it is "hard to maintain" for upstream ... that would be just odd. >> If upstream is willing to maintain MySQL in Fedora then the whole "replace >> it because it is hard to maintain" does not make sense. We should either >> stay with MySQL or ship both but there is no reason to replace it anymore. > > I guess no one opposes keeping both ... in fact, the feature page says: > > "MySQL will continue to be available for at least one release," I know it just does not make sense to remove something from the distribution if there is someone (in this case even upstream) willing to maintain it. > as for choosing which one will be default ... it is nice that upstream wants > to support us, but what were they doing those 10 years of Fedora development > (or 13.5 years since first mysql rpm changelog entry)? > > are they interested only when they see they could lose marketshare? I can't answer that ask them ;) -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
