MariaDB: Packagers needed
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Oct 30 00:58:40 UTC 2012
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 01:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 30.10.2012 01:08, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> > On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 23:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Sven Lankes wrote:
> >>> mariadb will need to conflict with the default mysql packages
> >>> which is usually not allowed in fedora. So this is going to
> >>> be interesting.
> >> Uh, conflicting with MySQL is really a no go (just look at how many things
> >> require mysql-libs, and even mysql-server is required for Akonadi, and
> >> mysql-embedded or Amarok), why isn't the fork renaming its stuff? If the
> >> idea is to be a 100% compatible drop-in replacement, then Fedora needs to
> >> make a choice whether to ship Oracle's MySQL or MariaDB and then stick to
> >> it.
> > Well, we could also take the approach we take with MTAs; have a set of
> > generic virtual Provides for MySQL-alikes and have all the MySQL-alikes
> > we package Provide these, as well as Providing their own specific name,
> > and conflict with each other. Just like postfix, qmail and sendmail all
> > Provide: smtpd and conflict with each other.
> you can not compare a more or less standalone MTA with a package
> like mysql-libs where endless packages linked against!
I didn't compare anything. I suggested that the _mechanism_ we use in
that case may also be appropriate in that case _if_ the circumstances
merited it. I explicitly stated that I didn't know whether the
circumstances actually do make it a sensible choice. I just floated the
I do wish you'd read with a bit more subtlety sometimes, Harald.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel