[debian-mysql] unversioned packaging

Nicholas Bamber nicholas at periapt.co.uk
Mon Apr 23 20:30:35 UTC 2012

On 20/04/12 19:20, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Another thing to discuss which is only slightly related to the rules
> file is to ask why we are doing minor-version source package names. I
> understand that transitions, in the past, needed this. However, IMO
> now we should just have a 'mysql' source package and use experimental
> to prepare transitions when a new major release is available. I can't
> imagine a time where we want to ship *two* major versions of mysql in
> the same release of Debian.

Do you mean the source package would no longer be versioned or all the 

Anyway I have thought  of various implications. Mainly we have a lot of 
installation/upgrade (i.e. piuparts) issues. In the long run such a move 
is likely to reduce such issues but in the short   term increase them - 
and we have not even begun to get on top of them.

Next maintaining a version in unstable and a version in experimental
is a lot easier when you are using git. I would not mind moving to a 
full   copy of the upstream code like other projects do as that would 
make git integration   easier. On the other hand there are differing 
opinions on how to use git and I suspect that the resulting arguments 
become almost religious. If there  were disagreements I would retain the 
current sparse layout. A plan might look like this:

1.) Fix RC bugs in mysql-5.1
2.) implement new debian/rules in mysql-5.5
3.) Push mysql-5.5 into unstable
4.) Start work in on eliminating any piuparts style issues.

**** FREEZE *****************

5.) Prepare git based 'mysql' package incorporating a 5.5 master branch 
and a 5.6
6.) Release the 5.6 branch to experimental

**** UNFREEZE ***************

7.) Remove mysql-5.1 from testing
8.) Must be satisfied that piuparts are resolved
9.) Replace mysql-5.5 with mysql and lots of Provides clauses so that 
5.5 is still available virtually.

More information about the pkg-mysql-maint mailing list