Robie, I have no idea why are you talking about -compat packages and mariadb shipping libmysqlclient.
The initial email stated: > Packages built against default-mysqlclient-dev and link using > "-lmysqlclient" will end up with a shared library dependency on either > libmysqlclient.so.X or libmariadbclient.so.X depending on the default > defined by the release team at build time. These will be provided by > the libmysqlclient18 (soon to be libmysqlclient20) and > libmariadbclient18 packages, which will be co-installable. Packages > which require particular functionality available from only one of the > forks may Build-Depend directly on libmysqlclient-dev or > libmariadbclient-dev and then link using "-lmysqlclient" or > "-lmariadbclient" respectively. Again, please get in touch if this > applies to you. But I don't care that much to continue this discussion as you clearly seem to have strong opinion about that. You (as the pkg-mysql team) are the one who will be clearing the mess in the release, so it's definitely up to you how you want to handle this. I expressed my opinion and I will not pursue this discussion further. Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server Knot Resolver (https://www.knot-resolver.cz/) – secure, privacy-aware, fast DNS(SEC) resolver Vše pro chleba (https://vseprochleba.cz) – Potřeby pro pečení chleba všeho druhu On Wed, Sep 7, 2016, at 12:09, Robie Basak wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:00:37AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > So again I urge you to revert the decision to introduce yet another > > change in the Build-Depends for >= 300 packages and just use the > > libmysqlclient-dev package to be the "default". > > Sorry, I disagree. The situation with MariaDB needing to ship > libmysqlclient.so is broken. I'd prefer to restrict this insanity to the > -compat package only. > > This way: > > * The insanity only slips further to the defaults- package but no > further. > > * Packages that don't have to be involved don't get dragged in. > > * The "shoulds" in package naming in Debian policy (8.1/8.4) are met. > > Robie >
