Hi, Would it make sense to ship libdrizzle in its standalone form as "libdrizzle-client",...
Or something entirely different, but related?
It does have some, though it needs to be developed more, support for other
databases as well.
I would like for the code in lp:drizzle to be the canonical source, but the end
result of "lp:libdrizzle",... we can change its name to avoid some of these
issues.
Thoughts?
If we want to use a different name, I would want to have that discussion off
list so that we can grab the .org/.com before some enterprising individual does
(I am happy to pay for it and just assign it over to the foundation).
Cheers,
-Brian
On Feb 10, 2012, at 1:54 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> 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.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
