I think it's better to have the client and server separate. In my experience the server gets revved far more often than the client. There are libdrizzle users who only want libdrizzle and aren't using the server component at all. I recently began working with libdrizzle as a replacement for libmysqlclient. At first I was excited to find lp:libdrizzle then saddened when I found that it was out of date and had been rolled back into lp:drizzle.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What kind of testing? >>> Isn't a newer version backwards compatible? >>> >> >> Smoke test. ABI must be guaranteed, and while we can detect and scan >> and try our best, sometimes ABI is a tricky monster, so we require that >> backports have all their reverse deps smoke tested. > > Doesn't upgrading the server but not the client require the same kind > of testing? > >>> > 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. >>> >>> What about excluding the client programs too? >>> >> >> I'm still failing to see where the library should be coupled with the >> server. If you add something to the server, add it to the library. Fine, >> but don't force users to upgrade the library just because they wanted >> to upgrade the server. > > I'm not saying it has to be. > > -- > Olaf > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Eric Bergen [email protected] http://www.ebergen.net _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
