On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:46:26 +0200, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> That (nameXY) would be more usefull for PostgreSQL, where old and new
> version need to be installed for a database upgrade between different
> major versions.
Hm? Actually never did that for years...
"pg_upgrade supports upgrades
todo:
move utmp group to setup package,
we already have "http" and "stats" users there
it makes pam required base dependency, but i do not need pam in docker:
bash-4.4# poldek -e pam
mark pam-1.3.0-2.x86_64
Processing dependencies...
pam-1.3.0-2.x86_64 marks pwdutils-3.2.19-4.x86_64 (req pam
On 2016-10-29 11:17, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> On Saturday 29 of October 2016, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> On 29.10.2016 11:25, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>>> should we introduce mysql57, mysql80 packages instead?
>
> Only if there are incompatible on upgrade path. To be verified with docs.
>
On Saturday 29 of October 2016, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 29.10.2016 11:25, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > how is it planned to handle that mysql.spec is now different product
> > (mysql vs percona)
> > and all those mariadb and percona-server packages.
> >
> > mysql 5.6 -> 5.7 MAY NOT be
On 29.10.2016 11:25, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
hi
how is it planned to handle that mysql.spec is now different product
(mysql vs percona)
and all those mariadb and percona-server packages.
mysql 5.6 -> 5.7 MAY NOT be upgraded automatically. if someone used
features from percona-server 5.6 that
hi
how is it planned to handle that mysql.spec is now different product
(mysql vs percona)
and all those mariadb and percona-server packages.
mysql 5.6 -> 5.7 MAY NOT be upgraded automatically. if someone used
features from percona-server 5.6 that are now not present in
mysql-community
