Excerpts from Henrik Ingo's message of Thu Feb 09 23:48:42 -0800 2012: > Hi Brian > > Did you figure out what to do with versioning and such? > > The more I think about it, the more I went back to the idea that when > it comes to packages, libdrizzle could continue to be released > together with drizzled, and only that. After all, the original request > was for someone who wanted to compile libdrizzle from source, and that > is now satisfied. >
>From a packaging/OS integration perspective.. I'd rather see libdrizzle be separate. The libraries on a system are a lot harder to get right than a single daemon, so I'd rather see libdrizzle be its own stable, barely changing thing. This way if somebody wants the next GA of drizzled in 2 years on a system which releases with the current GA.. they just have to backport drizzled, without concern for messing up anything they've compiled against the library. Right now we can't ship backports of mysqld easily in Ubuntu backports, because it requires testing all of the reverse depends of libmysqlclient. In order to do a backport, one has to remove libmysqlclient from the installation, which is not as easy as it sounds since the client programs link against it. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
