Thanks for all developers' great work. Here I have two questions about
cluster.
MariaDB stays in Fedora repository now, however, Galera Cluster does not
contain in MariaDB. MariaDB with Galera Cluster is marked as stable. Is
there any plan to enable Galera Cluster feature.
NDBCluster Engine was
Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for all developers' great work. Here I have two questions about
cluster.
MariaDB stays in Fedora repository now, however, Galera Cluster does not
contain in MariaDB. MariaDB with Galera Cluster is marked as stable. Is
there any plan to
On 2/9/2013 1:58 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 25/01/2013 19:46, Norvald Ryeng a écrit :
We'll try to do better in the future.
So I will also try to work better,
and so will report the annoying packaging bugs.
MySQL Workbench 5.2.46 is released, so
Connector/C++
Remi Collet wrote:
Le 09/02/2013 19:08, Alfredo Kojima a écrit :
Whenever we need to use a 3rd party lib that no distribution ships,
we're stuck thinking whether it's better to ship it ourselves or just
leave out everything, forcing users and packagers to fetch them
externally. Can you shed
Le 25/01/2013 19:46, Norvald Ryeng a écrit :
We'll try to do better in the future.
So I will also try to work better,
and so will report the annoying packaging bugs.
MySQL Workbench 5.2.46 is released, so
Connector/C++
http://bugs.mysql.com/68320
Missing option for library
On 02/03/2013 06:24 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
01.02.2013 00:42, James Hogarth wrote:
I'd still say yes since the context of this discussion is mysql 5.5 to
mariadb 5.5 and nothing to do with mysql 5.6 and the time for mariadb
10/11 to become fully compatible to what's brought to the table in
It looks like openSUSE is providing both, MariaDB and MySQL, with MariaDB
as a default[1].
[1] - http://michal.hrusecky.net/2013/01/mysql-mariadb-and-opensuse-12-3/
2013/2/4 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com
On 02/03/2013 06:24 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
01.02.2013 00:42, James Hogarth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:16:36AM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
But the fact that the packages conflict should stand in the way.
We don't have any guidelines that forbids it.
Just a note for people searching the mailing list later:
We do have Guidelines that prohibit
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You are putting the cart before the horse. You have to demonstrate its
feasible to fix them before excluding future uses. I don't see how it is
possible to fix the entire distribution to never use conflicts.
Aggressive renaming (see e.g. what I did to kdelibs to allow
01.02.2013 00:42, James Hogarth wrote:
Is it?
http://blog.mariadb.org/explanation-on-mariadb-10-0/ and
http://blog.mariadb.org/mariadb-10-0-and-mysql-5-6/ seem to
suggest that MariaDB will no longer be following Mysql as
religiously as the feature suggests
I'd still say
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If the current maintainers orphan mysql anyone can pick it up including
Oracle employees and continue it's maintenance within the distribution.
Any beef, competition or what not between Red Hat and Oracle ( or anyone
else for that matter ) is between Red Hat and
Remi Collet wrote:
- if you don't like fork of MySQL, why do you fork other projects ?
MW include a forked version of vsqlite++
(and AFAIK, upstream is not aware of your changes / need)
Another project Oracle effectively forked in OpenOffice.org, by refusing to
donate the OpenOffice.org
Hi
But the fact that the packages conflict should stand in the way.
We don't have any guidelines that forbids it.
I don't see how having 2 packages which are drop-in replacements of each
other and ship conflicting files (requiring the packages to Conflict with
each other at RPM level) is
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Do you have a proposal to solve it other than excluding all possible
alternative implementations? If so, you should post it and let FPC vote on
it.
For a starter, I propose excluding all new uses of Conflicts (except with
someEVR versioning where an EVR = someEVR is
Hi
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
For a starter, I propose excluding all new uses of Conflicts (except with
someEVR versioning where an EVR = someEVR is already available in the
repository, or if the item being conflicted with is not in Fedora), and
trying to get the
Is it?
http://blog.mariadb.org/explanation-on-mariadb-10-0/ and
http://blog.mariadb.org/mariadb-10-0-and-mysql-5-6/ seem to suggest that
MariaDB will no longer be following Mysql as religiously as the feature
suggests
I'd still say yes since the context of this discussion is mysql 5.5 to
On 30 January 2013 04:24, James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, if mariadb differs more in the future and stops to be drop-in
replacement, then we'll need an alternative for applications, where mariadb
won't be suitable enough. Nevertheless, this is not a current issue right
On 01/26/2013 10:33 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/26/2013 08:42 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 21:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2013 21:24, schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
but keep in mind that Fedora is the base for RHEL
applications may be certified for
Firstly, some admins may be bound to mysql because of the certification
or similar reason, but it probably won't be a technical reason. It'd be
nice if admins work with providers in such cases and push them to add
mariadb into set of supported options. I believe there won't be technical
barrier
OpenSUSE is dumping MySQL in the next release 12.3[1] and, also is
Wikipedia[2]
[1] -
http://www.muktware.com/5148/opensuse-dumps-mysql-makes-mariadb-default-database
[2] -
http://www.zdnet.com/wikipedia-moving-from-mysql-to-mariadb-708912/
2013/1/26 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 20:29 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 25/01/2013 19:46, Norvald Ryeng a écrit :
Here's the bug: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=68182
This bug has now been fixed and will be included in release 1.2.0.
So, a few questions ?
- why do you publish community source tarball
On 01/28/2013 01:22 PM, Norvald Ryeng wrote:
We include the docs because they are useful to users downloading the
software directly from dev.mysql.com, even if Fedora and other distros
can't redistribute them.
In Debian, recreating the tarball is done by the get-orig-source target
in
On 01/28/2013 01:22 PM, Norvald Ryeng wrote:
We include the docs because they are useful to users downloading the
software directly from dev.mysql.com, even if Fedora and other distros
can't redistribute them.
In Debian, recreating the tarball is done by the get-orig-source target
in
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:43:02PM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
We would like to replace MySQL with MariaDB in early development cycle for
Fedora 19. MySQL will continue to be available for at least one release, but
MariaDB will become the default. Also, we do not intend to support concurrent
Am 25.01.2013 18:57, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
Just to be clear, RHEL != Fedora. Red Hat policy for RHEL kernel is not
acceptable to Fedora and Fedora kernel
continues to have the patches split out. You cannot use that to defend MySQL
policies here. You can do whatever
you want to do
Hi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Reindl Harald
if there is no way to have both, mysqld AND mariadb Fedora
should do itself a favour and keep mysqld, not for now -
forever or as long not most other software supports mariadb
explicitly which is not the case now
It is very much possible
Am 26.01.2013 19:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Reindl Harald
if there is no way to have both, mysqld AND mariadb Fedora
should do itself a favour and keep mysqld, not for now -
forever or as long not most other software supports mariadb
Hi
a operating systemd / distribution should not built for it's
own with the attitude what does us bother software outside our
repos?
this NIH syndrome is very very bad
Both MySQL and MariaDB is available and neither was invented here and
either can be used as per your preference. When
Le vendredi 25 janvier 2013 à 19:05 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 25.01.2013 18:57, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
Just to be clear, RHEL != Fedora. Red Hat policy for RHEL kernel is not
acceptable to Fedora and Fedora kernel
continues to have the patches split out. You cannot use that
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 19:05 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.01.2013 18:57, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
Just to be clear, RHEL != Fedora. Red Hat policy for RHEL kernel
is not acceptable to Fedora and Fedora kernel
continues to have the patches split out. You cannot use that to
defend
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 21:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2013 21:24, schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
but keep in mind that Fedora is the base for RHEL
applications may be certified for mysql
And that is Fedora's problem how?
and THAT is the problem with many pieces of
Am 26.01.2013 21:14, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
a operating systemd / distribution should not built for it's
own with the attitude what does us bother software outside our
repos?
this NIH syndrome is very very bad
Both MySQL and MariaDB is available and neither was invented
Am 26.01.2013 21:24, schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
but keep in mind that Fedora is the base for RHEL
applications may be certified for mysql
And that is Fedora's problem how?
and THAT is the problem with many pieces of fedora-development
the last few years - what do we care for the real
On 01/26/2013 08:42 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 21:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.01.2013 21:24, schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
but keep in mind that Fedora is the base for RHEL
applications may be certified for mysql
And that is Fedora's problem how?
and THAT is
On 01/25/2013 02:46 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
It strikes me that we missed a bet in setting up the mariadb package
for only F19-and-up in git.
You can request a branch (for a release which accepts branch requests, i.e.
currently F17 and F18) after the fact, at any time. So you
On 01/23/2013 01:04 PM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
On 01/22/2013 10:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes, that's the general idea --- any dependencies on mysql should result
in installing mariadb, unless the user takes specific action to get
mysql instead. Ideally we'd just do the standard Provides/Obsoletes
Once upon a time, Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com said:
Is there really no way to do removal/install like above in one yum
transaction?
Use yum shell. You can set up multiple things to do and then run it
all as one transaction.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
Is there really no way to do removal/install like above in one yum
transaction?
I've been watching this thread but otherwise staying out of it :)
But to answer your question I believe that if you use yum shell and
tell it to
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Honza Horak wrote:
On 01/23/2013 01:04 PM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
On 01/22/2013 10:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes, that's the general idea --- any dependencies on mysql should result
in installing mariadb, unless the user takes specific action to get
mysql instead. Ideally
On 1/23/2013 6:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:49 -0800, Andrew Rist wrote:
but the database choice for Fedora should only focus on the merits and
the quality of the MySQL code
You may have read the mission statement, but you appear to have entirely
missed the four
Hi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
When it comes to Freedommany companies working, contributing, and
supporting open source codebases have information disclosure policies very
similar to MySQL [1]. The code is still GPL and out there for everyone to
check out [2].
On 25.01.2013 18:49, Andrew Rist wrote:
On 1/23/2013 6:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:49 -0800, Andrew Rist wrote:
but the database choice for Fedora should only focus on the merits and
the quality of the MySQL code
You may have read the mission statement, but you
- m...@zarb.org wrote:
So let's take a very narrow and specific example, and see what could you
do after the fact to make packagers life easier.
While working with Remi on a package review[1], I was quite surprised to
see that one Oracle engineer created a internal bug for the inclusion
Le 25/01/2013 19:46, Norvald Ryeng a écrit :
Here's the bug: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=68182
So, a few questions ?
- why do you publish community source tarball with non GPL
documentation inside ?
We need to recreate a nodocs tarball for each version, nightmare
Ex : mysql,
Le 24/01/2013 02:49, Andrew Rist a écrit :
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB
...
/me speaking from my experience.
I don't maintain MySQL, but various other mysql packages
(mysql-utilities, mysql-connector-python, mysql-workbench, ...).
Maintaining Oracle stuff
On 01/24/2013 01:49 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB in
Fedora, and would like to provide additional data to help the
community make the most informed decision. Instead of switching**the
default to MariaDB 5.5 we would like to propose
On 01/24/2013 03:19 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 24/01/2013 02:49, Andrew Rist a écrit :
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB
...
/me speaking from my experience.
I don't maintain MySQL, but various other mysql packages
(mysql-utilities, mysql-connector-python,
- fed...@famillecollet.com wrote:
Le 24/01/2013 02:49, Andrew Rist a écrit :
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB
...
/me speaking from my experience.
I don't maintain MySQL, but various other mysql packages
(mysql-utilities, mysql-connector-python,
Le jeudi 24 janvier 2013 à 12:11 -0800, Norvald Ryeng a écrit :
I'm sorry to hear about the lack of communication. I'm a MySQL
developer, and for the last year I've been working with different
packagers. Linux distributions are an important part of our community,
and we'd like very much to
Tom Lane wrote:
It strikes me that we missed a bet in setting up the mariadb package
for only F19-and-up in git.
You can request a branch (for a release which accepts branch requests, i.e.
currently F17 and F18) after the fact, at any time. So you didn't really
miss anything. :-) See:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Honestly, I'd be curious as to whether we could get all the compatibility
testing done early enough, and packages changed, such that we could
consider dropping MySQL. It's just... cleaner.
+1
Shipping both is a mess we really want to avoid.
Kevin Kofler
--
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:12:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It strikes me that we missed a bet in setting up the mariadb package
for only F19-and-up in git. If we made a version available for F18,
that would allow people to test compatibility without having to run
rawhide, which is something
On 01/22/2013 10:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes, that's the general idea --- any dependencies on mysql should result
in installing mariadb, unless the user takes specific action to get
mysql instead. Ideally we'd just do the standard Provides/Obsoletes
dance for replacing one package with another,
- Original Message -
Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) said:
Yes, that's the general idea --- any dependencies on mysql should
result
in installing mariadb, unless the user takes specific action to get
mysql instead. Ideally we'd just do the standard
Provides/Obsoletes
dance for
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
Default might not be the exactly correct word here. The main thing
I'm expecting would be that the mysql database package group would
actually give you mariadb, as would the anaconda checkbox.
Will it be designed to work with the alternatives
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com writes:
Will it be designed to work with the alternatives infrastructure so
that those that actually want mysql can swap it in/out?
No; we're specifically *not* interested in building alternatives
infrastructure. It would be a waste of effort if we're going
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB in
Fedora, and would like to provide additional data to help the community
make the most informed decision. Instead of switching**the default to
MariaDB 5.5 we would like to propose that Fedora instead integrate MySQL
5.6.
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:49 -0800, Andrew Rist wrote:
but the database choice for Fedora should only focus on the merits and
the quality of the MySQL code
You may have read the mission statement, but you appear to have entirely
missed the four foundations:
It would nice for MariaDB to obsolete MySQL and have an emulation
switch that allows it to masquerade as a MySQL installation as well as
operate in native mode. This will provide backwards compatability for
systems that use products that want to see a MySQL installation. This
will also provide a
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:24 +1100, Arthur G wrote:
It would nice for MariaDB to obsolete MySQL and have an emulation
switch that allows it to masquerade as a MySQL installation as well as
operate in native mode. This will provide backwards compatability for
systems that use products that want
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
As decided by FESCo on 2012-12-05 meeting, all proposed Features are required
to pass through the community review by announcing them on devel-announce
list.
FESCo votes on new features no sooner than a week from the announcement.
=
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
We would like to replace MySQL with MariaDB in early development cycle for
Fedora 19. MySQL will continue to be available for at least one release, but
MariaDB will become the default. Also, we do not
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:25:46 -0500
Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
We would like to replace MySQL with MariaDB in early development
cycle for Fedora 19. MySQL will continue to be available for at
least
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes:
Would this involve moving around any of the provides for mysql over to
MariaDB?
Yes, that's the general idea --- any dependencies on mysql should result
in installing mariadb, unless the user takes specific action to get
mysql instead. Ideally we'd just do
Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) said:
Yes, that's the general idea --- any dependencies on mysql should result
in installing mariadb, unless the user takes specific action to get
mysql instead. Ideally we'd just do the standard Provides/Obsoletes
dance for replacing one package with another, but
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) said:
(If the compatibility testing goes *really* smoothly, maybe we could
just drop the requirement for original mysql to still be available,
in which case it reduces to the standard package-replacement problem.
But I'm
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 02:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) said:
(If the compatibility testing goes *really* smoothly, maybe we could
just drop the requirement for original mysql to still be available,
in which case it reduces
As decided by FESCo on 2012-12-05 meeting, all proposed Features are required
to pass through the community review by announcing them on devel-announce list.
FESCo votes on new features no sooner than a week from the announcement.
= Features/ReplaceMySQLwithMariaDB =
68 matches
Mail list logo
