Hi, in order to get more testing, i've decided to submit to cauldron core/release, however there lies a problem:
Since everything is almost exact with mysql, same files and such, there are some library conflicts which would present always a choice if we want both mysql and mariadb (in particular libmysqlclient.so.X). Since we also want this really used at build/link time one of both versions should be used. considering that mariadb mysql client works perfectly for both mysql and mariadb. and that mysql mysql-client may not work perfectly for local servers due to the my.cnf file being used for both client and server (mysql client is supported for remote mariadb servers), I'd like to use the mariadb client packages. The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities: A. I remove the mysql-client, libmysqlclient, mysql-common and assorted packages from mysql, and provide them with mariadb, since libmysqlclient is drop-in replacable (same library ABI and such), there is not 100% requirement of rebuilding all libmysqlclient dependant programs. advantages: - both mariadb and mysql servers are present, people can choose disadvantages: - more QA - more work for me B. We drop mysql completely and submit mariadb advantages: - less work for me - less work for QA disadvantages: - mysql is completely gone. If I get to choose, i'd know which one i would choose, but I'd like some feedback on this point. Some more bordering information: - mariadb has XtraDB, which is essentially a patched InnoDB (it also supplies an exact vanilla InnoDB as a plugin) - mariadb still has myISAM support - mariadb has as a default storage engine Aria (which can be used either as transactional and as non-transactional) - the files are exactly the same as mysql, it's still mysqld, mysql for client so upgrading issues should be minimal, but still tested, of course. so please, test mariadb, build stuff against lib64mariadbclient18 , and give opinion to which option to choose: A/B .
