Should MariaDB touch my.cnf in %post?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:00AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Norvald H. Ryeng" <norvald.ryeng at oracle.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:07:22 +0100, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com>  
> >> Well, unless Oracle as upstream wants to get involved as downstream
> >> maintainers in Fedora as well.  They did offer to do that but don't seem  
> >> to have stepped up yet.
> 
> > Let's do it now, then. :-)
> 
> > We want to keep the MySQL package in Fedora and are willing to co-maintain  
> > or take over maintainership if nobody else will do it. We haven't really  
> > discussed this with the current maintainers yet, but from the discussions  
> > on this list it seems they're not interested in maintaining the package  
> > after F19. If us stepping up changes that, we are happy to co-maintain.
> 
> 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.
> 
It's all going to depend on what we want the upgrade experience to be like
for people going from f18 to f19.  I believe that FESCo punted it down the
road since there wasn't an actual MySQL package maintainer at the time we
decided to accept the Feature (just potential ones).

On a fresh install from dvd, if someone wants a database, they'll probably
get the choice of postgresql or mariadb.  If someone installs one of our
components that link against the client libraries, they'll get mariadb
client libs installed.  Those seem to fit pretty easily into having a
default of mariadb while having both packages available in the repositories.

What to do for people who are upgrading, though?  Do we want people to be
migrated to mariadb and then they need to purposefully switch over to mysql
(by uninstalling mariadb packages and then installing the mysql package
instead) or do we want them to get mysql since that's what they  have
installed presently?

If we want the latter, the new maintainers may just need to take over the
present mysql package.  It will then update the mysql package from F18 if
people have that installed.  If we want the former, then having "mysql"
become a virtual provide and "MySQL" become the mysql-providing package in
Fedora seems like it will work pretty well.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130214/3637c914/attachment-0001.sig>