[debian-mysql] factoring out mysql-common

[Lars Tangvald]

Hi

On 06/28/2016 10:05 PM, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Hello!
>
> 2016-06-28 14:17 GMT+03:00 Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com>:
>> I would like us to conclude my question about whether we want to create
>> extra metapackages though, as I don't think it's necessary. I'd rather
>> see us make things simpler by turning virtual-mysql-* into metapackages
>> that depend on our chosen default, renaming as necessary. Then we'd have
>> less indirection.
>>
>> The name "default-mysql-server" doesn't make sense though if it is to be
>> a metapackage that depends on "mariadb-server | mysql-server" since if a
>> user is using mysql-server then it is no longer the default that is
>> installed.
> I think the easiest way to go forward is to
> 1) split the mysql-common into a separate source package as agreed -
> Andreas has done it, shall we proceed to upload it?
> 2) create a new metapackage that packages can build-depend on
>
> So far the virtual-mysql-* have served us well and I don't see an
> urgent need to migrate away from them. We anyway have a lot of legacy
> from those already, and I would rather not want to start maintaining a
> parallel system.
>
> The virtual-mysql-* packages don't satisfy the build-depends need,
> thus we need the metapackage mysql-default-* as Andreas suggested. I
> am fine with creating one. It is an exact solution to an exact use
> case and problem. From there we can later expand if we need, but
> really all other use cases are handled by the already implemented
> virtual-mysql-* scheme.
>
> I don't want ot start using virtual-mysql-* names for something they
> were not orignally designed for. That would create confusion. And I
> don't want to rename those names. If we at the same time use those
> names for something else _and_ rename them, isn't that the same thing
> as creating new metapackages? So going forward with the mysql-default
> package that can satisfy the build-depends needs (as Andreas has put
> it) should be the way forward, right?
>
> - Otto
The problem is that then we end up with one more package that 
maintainers need to work with, while Robie's suggestion refactors the 
current one to fill both roles. What is the benefit of creating the 
extra package over combining them into a single (renamed) one?

--
Lars
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-mysql-maint mailing list
> pkg-mysql-maint at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-mysql-maint