On 02/15/2013 02:28 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:00AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Norvald H. Ryeng" <norvald.ryeng(a)oracle.com> writes:
>> 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
> 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
It's all going to depend on what we want the upgrade experience to be like
for people going from f18 to f19. I believe that FESCo punted it down the
road since there wasn't an actual MySQL package maintainer at the time we
decided to accept the Feature (just potential ones).
How could there be since the current mysql maintainers did not orphan