Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora yet?
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:07:15 -0500, Michael J. Pawlowsky mikep@mi-consultants.com wrote:
Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora yet?
Yes.
N.Emile
Care to share?
Not that I mind recompiling my own rpm's..... but would be nice just to yum install.
ne... wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:07:15 -0500, Michael J. Pawlowsky mikep@mi-consultants.com wrote:
Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora yet?
Yes.
N.Emile
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 07:27, Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora yet?
Yes.
N.Emile
If you search the archives of the list you will fin that this question has been asked atleast 3 times and the answer is Licensing Issues. 4 is under a whole new licensing from mysql. Redhat lawyers and mysql lawyers are still working out the details. IDK of ETA on this.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:35:55AM -0800, Mike Ramirez wrote:
If you search the archives of the list you will fin that this question has been asked atleast 3 times and the answer is Licensing Issues. 4 is under a whole new licensing from mysql. Redhat lawyers and mysql lawyers are still working out the details. IDK of ETA on this.
MySQL 4.1.7 is in rawhide (the development tree) right now. So I assume we figure Fedora Core 4 -- this spring -- as an ETA.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 11:59, Matthew Miller wrote:
MySQL 4.1.7 is in rawhide (the development tree) right now. So I assume we figure Fedora Core 4 -- this spring -- as an ETA.
Thank you Matthew
besides, mysql 4 is buggy anyway I hear... not interested in PHP 5 either because I hear I would have to rewrite all my code for PHP 5, esp in object oriented programs. least thats what I hear anyway.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:59:36 -0500, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:35:55AM -0800, Mike Ramirez wrote:
If you search the archives of the list you will fin that this question has been asked atleast 3 times and the answer is Licensing Issues. 4 is under a whole new licensing from mysql. Redhat lawyers and mysql lawyers are still working out the details. IDK of ETA on this.
MySQL 4.1.7 is in rawhide (the development tree) right now. So I assume we figure Fedora Core 4 -- this spring -- as an ETA.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://www.mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
What have you heard ?
I've been using 4.1.x for quite some time: 100,000,000+ records, 500 GB, etc etc. somedays over 2,000,000 inserts, 1,000,000 deletes.
The only thing I've heard about it being buggy is from a Oracle sales moron.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 19:00, Tom Coburn wrote:
besides, mysql 4 is buggy anyway I hear... not interested in PHP 5 either because I hear I would have to rewrite all my code for PHP 5, esp in object oriented programs. least thats what I hear anyway.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:59:36 -0500, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:35:55AM -0800, Mike Ramirez wrote:
If you search the archives of the list you will fin that this question has been asked atleast 3 times and the answer is Licensing Issues. 4 is under a whole new licensing from mysql. Redhat lawyers and mysql lawyers are still working out the details. IDK of ETA on this.
MySQL 4.1.7 is in rawhide (the development tree) right now. So I assume we figure Fedora Core 4 -- this spring -- as an ETA.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://www.mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:35:55AM -0800, Mike Ramirez wrote:
If you search the archives of the list you will fin that this question has been asked atleast 3 times and the answer is Licensing Issues. 4 is under a whole new licensing from mysql. Redhat lawyers and mysql lawyers are still working out the details. IDK of ETA on this.
MySQL 4.1.7 is in rawhide (the development tree) right now. So I assume we figure Fedora Core 4 -- this spring -- as an ETA.
Just to let folks know, we have resolved our legal issues to both companies satisifaction; so ETA of Fedora Core 4 is a good assumption on where it will be integrated into fedora. Thanks for your patience as we worked out this issue.
Just two questions
1. how about adding a MySQL-Max RPM ? 2. and is the server RPM really i386 ? or is it (fingers crossed) i686. If not would be great to have both a i386, i686 version. And while asking :) an i586
Be supprised how many still have i586's (K6 etc), but make great Microslosh Acess replacements.
-pete
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Pete Lancashire wrote:
- and is the server RPM really i386 ? or is it (fingers crossed) i686. If not would be great to have both a i386, i686 version. And while asking :) an i586
1. i386 => -O2 -g -march=i386 -mcpu=i686 <i.e optimized for i686 scheduling>
2. You can try grabbing the .src.rpm rebuild for i686 - and see if it makes a difference for your app.: rpmbuild --rebuild --target=i686 mysql.src.rpm
Satish
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Satish Balay wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Pete Lancashire wrote:
- and is the server RPM really i386 ? or is it (fingers crossed) i686. If not would be great to have both a i386, i686 version. And while asking :) an i586
- i386 => -O2 -g -march=i386 -mcpu=i686
<i.e optimized for i686 scheduling>
Me-bad.. Its '-O2 -g -pipe -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=pentium4'
Satish
- You can try grabbing the .src.rpm rebuild for i686 - and see if it makes a difference for your app.: rpmbuild --rebuild --target=i686 mysql.src.rpm
Satish
Pete Lancashire said: [snip]
- and is the server RPM really i386 ? or is it (fingers crossed)
i686. If not would be great to have both a i386, i686 version. And while asking :) an i586
And you of course have a valid test case that shows that it makes a difference, right?
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01358.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
| | Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora | yet? | | I thought we beat this topic with a stick earlier... Please check the archives....
In short, it was a RedHat / Lawyer decision. (period)
There is no reason, you can't download them yourself. Good Luck, James Kosin
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Michael J. Pawlowsky wrote:
Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora yet?
It now in rawhide. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg00197.html
Satish
Am Mi, den 01.12.2004 schrieb Michael J. Pawlowsky um 16:07:
Is there any major reason that MySQL 4.0 is not standard in Fedora yet?
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01189.html
Alexander