On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Ah, you're right. This has bit me too in the past in various ways. Ok, excellent. I will just accept then that libdrizzle is not to be packaged from the same spec file / debian dir anymore. Thanks for your input. henrik -- [email protected] +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
