Am 14.02.2013 16:17, schrieb Tom Lane:
"Norvald H. Ryeng" <norvald.ryeng(a)oracle.com>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:07:22 +0100, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)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",
etc, which simply conflicted with the Red Hat-supplied packages named
"mysql", "mysql-server", etc. Perhaps it would be best to continue
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
a sane decision would be to revert the whole MaridaDB decision
if people of oracle are willing to maintain MySQL in Fedora
damned do we need to replace and change anything all of the
time? WHAT are the real problems with MySQL? that is works?
well, the Oracle behavior was not perfect in the recent months
starting with http://dev.mysql.com/doc/relnotes/mysql/5.5/en/news-5-5-31.html
which was not so long ago NOT EMPTY before the release, but hey
give them a chance, there where enough replacements in the
last few years for more than one lifetime