Should MariaDB touch my.cnf in %post?

[Reindl Harald]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130215/f810c8d0/attachment-0001.sig>