On 11/8/07, Prashant Srinivasan <Prashant.Srinivasan at sun.com> wrote: > >> > >> unless there is a business reason to keep MySQL 4.x then I would > >> personally think that we should remove it from Nevada. > > Just because this is Nevada and not Solaris, doesn't mean that we > should dilute end user choice. > Whether MySQL 4.x should stay, or not, should, imo, be dictated by > > (0) Compatibility: We *want* to preserve compatibility. Why do we go > through detailed processes, where the watch words are *interfaces* and > *compatibility* for each F/OSS application that we integrate into > OpenSolaris, if we're willing to pull the plug so easily on an older rev? > > We do tons of research on what versions are expected to be incompatible > with each other, and how we're going to manage to maintain compatibility > on the face of incompatible changes - lets put that to work. > > While OpenSolaris does not guarantee compatibility, we don't want to > throw it away unless we really need to - this is our strength.
Just my opinion here: the 4.x mysql version shipped in /usr/sfw isn't generally useful, and never has been. It's 4.0.x, which isn't compatible with the no longer supported 4.1.x or the current mysql versions (the default authentication changed). We should get rid of it. (As a heavy user of mysql, having it present on my S10 boxes is proving harmful, because it's a mysql client that may accidentally get invoked and doesn't work.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
