Mark Allums wrote:
From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [mailto:h...@debian.org]
The Debian way is to provide mariadb packages, and keep providing Oracle
mysql packages.
What we would probably do:
0. add mariadb packages.
1. Rename mysql* to mysql-oracle*, provide msyql-* "transitional" packages
that depend on the oracle ones first, but accepts the mariadb ones as an
alternative.
2. Someday, *maybe*, if the situation warrants it, change the mysql-*
packages to point to mariadb packages as the primary (or only?) choice
instead. And eventually, remove the mysql-oracle* packages if the situation
warrants it. This might never happen, or it might happen soon.
Obviously, none of this will happen unless someone uploads high-quality
mariadb packages to Debian unstable as the first step...
This is essentially what the consensus of the discussions I have seen boils down to. Some distributions,
such as Fedora, are "switching." It's an either/or. Debian appears to prefer to let the
marketplace decide ("marketplace" here used to mean "users"). They will offer a choice
as long as it is feasible.
This sounds exactly right. We have quite a few SQL databases in the
package repository (mysql, postgresql, sqlite for starters) - why is not
mariadb just another addition? Where did this notion of an either/or
choice come from?
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51be6545.6020...@meetinghouse.net
