On Sunday 19 June 2011 22:38:28 Marian Marinov wrote: > On Sunday 19 June 2011 22:17:11 Steve Traylen wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Aaron Knister <aaron knister gmail com> > > wrote: > > > Depending on the definition of replace I wonder if you could do a > > > Provides: mysql as long as your the packages would appear similarly to > > > dependent packages. > > > > Ignoring EPEL for now if there are multiple mysqls arround then > > encouraging Fedora to adapt the mysql to support alternatives has to be > > the long term solution. > > > > Note I have never ever looked at MariaDB or Percona. Do they really > > use the same deamon names, library names, etc,....? > > > > Is MySQL to Percona MySQL to MariaDB > > the same as > > sendmail to exim to postgres? > > They are actually the same code. Percona is Oracle's MySQL but includes the > google patches(InnoDB high performance and user statistics). Percona also > adds one more storage engine XtraDB. > > MariaDB was a fork of MySQL when it began. Now it has a lot of changes that > make it quite different, again adding some of the Google patches and adding > new storage engines. > > So all 3 packages generate the same binaries and libraries. So in fact they > are the same thing. Both MariaDB and Percona-SQL are drop in replacements > of Oracle's MySQL. > > This is why I think of them as a replacement of the default MySQL. MySQL > stopped accepting patches changing the general functionality of MySQL when > they were aquired by SUN. So then was born Percona, it was needed because a > lot of us want the Google patches. And when Oracle aquired SUN, MariaDB > fork was born. > > > Steve I have thought about building both MySQL packages as a separate daemons but the problem is that since they are one and the same, they use the same port ,the same configuration files and the same data directories. Althou that could be changed with a few simple patches this would make them somewhat cripled. Also the userland tools use the same configuration files (~/.my.cnf) which will complicate things even more. Is it possible for the EPEL policy to bend a little here for at least one of these packages ? Best regards, Marian
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.