On 02/15/2013 12:39 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/15/2013 11:07 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
> Then it should also need separate binaries, libraries, datadir,
> socket, ... I'm not saying it is so bad idea, but it could be taken
> into account only in the upstream, we really cannot do something like
> that downstream. And we'd probably lost the drop-in feature and
> upgrade would be even more painful.
If fesco does not ban mysql from the distribution then upgrades should
not be painful because you would simply upgrade to the latest mysql
release in the distribution.
Sorry, I wrote it at a bit unclearly, by "upgrade" I meant the
replacement from MySQL->MariaDB.
If mysql on the other hand is banned in the distribution then
it makes sense to migrate those instances to the latest release of
mariadb instead thou I personally would not recommended it then either
but rather prefer it would be left alone then replaced by admin himself
This will be indeed possible. If admin reads the release notes before
upgrading to F19 (which I suppose if they mind their data), he will be
aware of the change and will be able to disable mariadb packages for the
time of upgrade in order to not replace mysql. Then, anytime later, he
will be able to do the manual replacement.
> In case it would be discussed, compatible, documented, noted in the
> release notes and we have a good reason to do so -- then why not?
Different product different characteristics
I still see the differences between MariaDB and MySQL to be very little.
>> If you install mate or cinnamon or unity for that matter
>> expect to be migrated and running Gnome 3.x after upgrade or would you
>> expect to be continuing to use and run what got forked or based of it.
> This is already too extreme, we cannot compare Gnome forks and MySQL
> forks. It's really a different scenario.
Same fundamental rules apply as I see it just different ( fork )
So what about upstart->systemd or Gnome2->Gnome3 switches? These also
took place without users interaction and it was not without problems.
OK, they aren't forks, just new features. Why not take MariaDB just as a
> Running both packages on the same server is not currently
> because they conflict. If somebody does it in any way, which means to
> separate files, sockets, ... then he should be able to separate config
> files as well.
Is that not an clear indicator that the replacement should not take
place on upgrade but rather be left up to the administrator to do
manually ( at least while we still ship mysql ) and we have mysql and
mariadb conflict with each other on packaging level?
Well, in case we wouldn't obsolete mysql -- then either we could do it
in F20 and have the same problem a few months later or don't do it at
all and then we would have troubles with CVE and unfriendly upstream