On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:17:00 +0100, Tom Lane <tgl(a)redhat.com> wrote:
"Norvald H. Ryeng" <norvald.ryeng(a)oracle.com>
> We want to keep the MySQL package in Fedora and are willing to
> or take over maintainership if nobody else will do it. We haven't really
> discussed this with the current maintainers yet, but from the
> 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
We now have a set of working 5.6.10 packages. The packages pass mtr tests
and we've tested some of the packages that depend on MySQL (php,
perl-DBD-MySQL, etc.). It all seems to be working well, so I think we're
ready to get it into rawhide. I believe Bjørn Munch has already contacted
you about how to upload, etc.
We've kept the existing package names. I don't understand the reasons
behind the name change you suggest. Honza Horák has added a real-mysql
virtual provides, and this is provided by the existing mysql and mariadb
packages, so it seems the infrastructure you suggest is already in place.
Our 5.6.10 packages are just an upgrade of the existing mysql packages, so
I see no need for a name change, and a change now would break upgrades for
users that already have the mysql packages installed.
Norvald H. Ryeng