Database SIG?

[Tom Lane]

David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat.com> writes:
>  On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 16:16 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote: 
>> I think this is excellent timing. I'm no database guru but with my
>> crystal ball I foresee MySQL requiring some form of attention in the
>> near future. :)
>> 
> This may be, though I'm not an expert on the MySQL project/diaspora.
> FWIW I've added links to MariaDB and to Drizzle to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dmalcolm/DatabaseSoftware#RDBMS ;
> but I'm not planning to package them personally.

> Should these be packaged yet?  My (personal) opinion here is to defer to
> Tom Lane's judgment on these things (MySQL maintainer for Fedora; CCed);
> it may be fun to package them, but maybe it's too early?  I guess they'd
> have to be separate, parallel installs, I wouldn't want them to
> destabilize the main MySQL packages.

First off, +1 for a database SIG --- I didn't respond earlier because
I didn't wish to muddy your sample, but I'm in.

As for the mysql situation, for the moment I want to keep packaging
"official" mysql, defined as "whatever mysql.com is shipping".  If
Oracle screws things up sufficiently (which I consider well within
the realm of possibility) then that will have to be revisited, but for
the moment I just want to wait and see.

I don't personally have the bandwidth or interest to package a bunch
of mysql forks, but if anyone else wants to pick up maintainership
of some of them, I have no objection.  We'd have to consider however
whether a package of a fork could coexist with the "standard" mysql
packages.  I suppose a few Conflicts: directives would solve the
problem if not, but it'd sure be more convenient if they could
coexist, or at the very least share the same client-side packages.

			regards, tom lane