Jan S Berg wrote: > > > >But where on the filesystem does SUNWmysql35o deliver its content > >(this is why it's useful to have some listing or Appendix showing > >what each package delivers)? > > It will be listed under the 5.0 release, but to use the Connector/ODBC > you will specify how to connect to the server using > odbc.ini/odbcinst.ini files and should not be depending on which version > you are running.
By listed do you mean in terms of filesystem location? The main question I'm chasing is how closely are these two (MySQL5 and mysql35o) related. The relationship manifests itself in several ways and those ways should be consistent. One is package naming, other is package dependencies, other is file layout and yet another is actual runtime dependencies. If these two are functionally entirely independent, it seems odd if the ODBC driver installs under /usr/mysql/5.0/lib (I don't know where yet, waiting for the appendix info ;-). That would mean that in the future if I install only MySQL6 and SUNWmysql35o I end up with a fully populated /usr/mysql/6.0/* and solitary ODBC files under /usr/mysql/5.0/lib? If SUNWmysql35o installs under /usr/mysql/5.0/* it probably should have a package dependency on MySQL5 and should even be named in some representative way (don't know, maybe SUNWmysql5-odbc or some such). On the other hand if it is entirely independent then it probably shouldn't install under /usr/mysql/5.0/ at all, but elsewhere. Maybe a /usr/mysql/common/? These aren't concrete proposals, I'm not at all familiar with the SUNWmysql35o contents, functionality and dependencies so I'm just throwing some ideas around... I'd like the project team/you to consider these scenarios and once you decide what's best, have a paragraph or so in the ARC case explaining the facts leading to the decision so it is clear to all. Regardless of how it ends up, I suggest using "odbc" in the package name, "o" alone isn't very descriptive. -- Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
