AFAIK percona only modifies the server component. The server speaks the same protocol as the official MySQL distribution, so it is fully compatible with libraries and tools that have already been deployed. This being the case I thought it didn't really make any sense to have a practically identical package as mysql-clients. My experience using percona with mysql-clients has been flawless up till now.
On Thursday, September 29, 2011, Evangelos Foutras wrote: > On 28/09/11 16:26, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote: > > Hi. > > Being a sysadmin with a lot of experience on database servers I > > thought I would share my experience on this case. > > > > I'm using mariadb as a MySQL replacement on a few servers using a > > custom package[1] that uses standard mysql paths and configurations. > > I've had a few inconsistencies with mysql in certain cases. MariaDB > > seemed to be afflicted by old bugs that were fixed on MySQL. > > On the other hand I never had a problem using percona-server [2], even > > though it took me a while to tweak the package to be a functional > > replacement. > > > > Obviously the tipycal environments in which I deployed this servers do > > not cover all possible situations. For instance, I don't know if they > > play nicely with kde (amarok uses an embedded mysql server, akonadi > > spawns a mysql server to store its data). > > > > [1] > https://github.com/mtorromeo/archlinux-packages/tree/master/mariadb-mysql-replacement > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40803 > > The percona-server package looks great, and I'd be interested to see it > in the repos. However, may I ask why it depends on mysql-clients instead > of keeping its own client utilities? Is it done for compatibility reasons? >
