[debian-mysql] MySQL in Jessie

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Emilio Pozuelo Monfort's message of 2014-10-01 08:01:46 -0700:
> [ Fixing the team at security.d.o Cc ]
> 
> On 26/09/14 11:31, James Page wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan
> > 
> >  On 26/08/14 00:46, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> >> Currently Jessie has version 5.5, and we would anticipate you
> >> shipping 5.6. Only experimental has seen an upload of 5.6. What's
> >> your plan here?
> > 
> >> Given the situation with upstream's approach to security releases,
> >> the security team are also in CC in case they have an opinion.
> > 
> >> We'd ideally like a situation where we only ship one fork of the
> >> codebase, so let's get your plans and take it from there.
> > 
> > As I emailed before, the plan was to get mysql-5.6 into unstable prior
> > to freeze; however we hit a snag that needed investigation upstream
> > which has delayed things a bit; specifically an ABI enum change -
> > Norvald from Oracle has done some in-depth investigate into this problem:
> > 
> > 
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mysql-maint/2014-September/007040.html
> > 
> > The break is a minor one and only impacts three in-archive packages
> > that would need a no-change rebuild post upload of mysql-5.6; so that
> > we don't end up with a crazy Debian specific version of
> > libmysqlclient, the recommendation is that we don't undertake a full
> > transition but deal with the three exceptions as a one off, and
> > resolve the soname version bump with mysql-5.7 in the future.  I'm not
> > 100% comfortable with this but it appears to be the best compromise we
> > can come up with.
> > 
> > If the release team is OK with this, we'll go ahead and upload
> > mysql-5.6 to unstable and raise bugs for the three impacted packages.
> > Please can you confirm.
> 
> I think it's rather late for such an upload, especially when it involves an ABI
> break. I asked other RT members and the answer I got also was that it was too
> late for this.
> 
> So I'd say we stay at 5.5 for Jessie.
> 
> > Robie and I are also working with Percona on PXC 5.6 (and PS 5.6);
> > that might not land in time so percona-xtradb-cluster-5.5 might have
> > to skip this release as I want to have a base compatibility of 5.6 for
> > this Debian release.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
> 
> Also, I haven't seen an answer as to which MySQL fork we want for Jessie. We
> can't have all 3 (or 4?) of them.
> 

I've answered already. There are people willing to do work on all of
them, and they are significantly different from each-other. Some of
those people are actually paid to do this work.

I understand this is more work for security, and I don't want to say
we have to ship all of them. I'm saying that nobody is going to step
forward and say "not mine" and nobody is going to step forward and say
"only mine", in part because some people think all three are important.

Fedora made their decision with a steering committee, and I believe
that decision was at least in part motivated by a business feud between
RedHat and Oracle. I don't know if the CTTE would have to be involved,
but it may be the only way to choose a course of action unless I am
mistaken and members of this team are willing to nominate some of the
forks for non-inclusion.

My personal feeling is that we should include the ones that have a
company ready to stake their reputation on it by committing publicly to
maintaining it for the life of Jessie. Oracle? Percona? MariaDB? Want
your fork in Debian? Let us know!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mysql-maint/attachments/20141001/af3dfe59/attachment.sig>