On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:59:50 +0100, Honza Horak <hhorak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2013 02:44 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Norvald H. Ryeng
> <norvald.ryeng(a)oracle.com> wrote:
>> In practice, this means that it will be almost impossible to install
>> in Fedora. The recipe in the feature page  requires the user to
>> 1. edit yum.conf to set excludes=mariadb* and obsoletes=0,
>> 2. run yum shell to replace the packages, and
>> 3. edit yum.conf again to remove obsoletes=0.
> I think that the above recipe wasn't updated for the package rename;
> with the new name, a simple "yum install MySQL" should work. Honza,
> is that how it was designed?
Yes, the feature page has been updated to correspond with the renaming
of mysql package. Shortly, users will be able to install MySQL-server in
a usual way (yum remove mariadb-server ; yum install MySQL-server).
What is a bit different -- MySQL-server requires "mysql" virtual symbol
to have utilities like mysql, mysqldump, etc. These are by default
provided by package mariadb, so it means MySQL-server will require
mariadb base package (in the same manner as all other packages in
Fedora, which need mysql client utilities).
I believe the tools should match the server. I.e, MariaDB tools for
MariaDB server, MySQL tools for MySQL server. I believe there are already
minor protocol differences between MariaDB and MySQL. Having a MySQL
server without fully working admin tools is not good.
> The FESCo decision from the minutes was:
>> feature owners are asked to make it possible to install the MySQL
>> stand-alone server (only)
> so dependencies on the client libraries are not a concern; Fedora
> packages are expected to use the MariaDB client libraries.
>> Everything that depends on mysql will then require mariadb to
>> be installed, but having both mariadb and MySQL at the same time is not
>> going to work unless the files in the mariadb packages are renamed.
> File conflicts within the server packages might still be a concern, I
> don't know. Per the decision quoted above, FESCo would prefer the
> maintainers of the two servers to agree on a solution.
I believe conflicting server packages are not an issue -- users will be
able to use one or another.
I disagree. The best example of this not working is the akonadi-mysql
package which now depends directly on mariadb-server. This makes it
impossible/very much harder to install MySQL on a KDE desktop. Also, there
are applications depending on mysql or mysql-server. If the MySQL packages
aren't allowed to provide those virtual provides, it will be impossible to
use those applications with MySQL.
The best would be to make the packages non-conflicting, either completely
separate or using alternatives to set a default.
Norvald H. Ryeng