tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: openssl 1.1 fallout with mmysql, mysql succession planning?

* On 2020-01-20 at 17:38 GMT, Greg Troxel wrote:

> Jonathan Perkin <> writes:
> >> Do you mean, "other than mysql-5.5 which is EOL and for which there is
> >> no reason to use, only a few things broke, and they are all unmaintained
> >> and deletion candidates"?
> >> 
> >> I am just trying to understand whether other than fixing the default,
> >> there is a tiny maybe-problem or something larger.   It does seem that
> >> mysql-using packages in pkgsrc are now broken, which isn't ok.
> >
> > Yeh, I forgot that pkgsrc still defaulted to 5.5, as that's not
> > something we (Joyent) have done for at least 5 years.
> I actually looked at the code and the default for mysql has been 57
> since some time in 2018.

Fair enough ;)

> >> > The complicated part is bringing over the changes from our pbulkmulti
> >> > branch so that users aren't forced into a single mysqlclient
> >> > implementation.
> >> 
> >> I don't follow this.  Right now pkgsrc users have to choose between
> >> mysql 5.5 5.6 or 5.7, and pretty clearly ought to choose 5.7 (from among
> >> those).  Extending that set to add mariadb and percona seems like a good
> >> step forward.   I can see the point that we would like bulk builds for
> >> multiple choices, but I don't see why that should block progress.   Is
> >> that right, or am I missing something?
> >
> > Part of the pbulkmulti code is an overhaul of mk/
> > to support alternate versions.
> So it works like postgresql, where multiple packages can be built
> against different versions but only one installed, or like python, or ?
> That sounds great, but I don't understand why not having that is a
> barrier to having more recent mariadb and percona in pkgsrc.   I would
> think that someone would still have to choose a single systemwide
> version and then things would work or not.  But that's what we have now,
> with fewer choices.

All I'm saying is that I don't have time to verify that my extensive
changes to are suitable for upstreaming yet and
can handle existing installations, and adding percona to the existing would be brand new work I also don't have time for
(and would be a waste of that time given it would be overwritten

If someone else wants to do this work, awesome!

Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index