List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Joerg Bruehe Date:February 9 2010 11:41am
Subject:Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary
packages?
View as plain text  
Hi everybody!


In the context of a cleanup in our build scripts, especially the "spec"
files for RPMs, I have come across the "sql-bench" subtree.


Until MySQL version 5.0, it was possible to do
    configure ... --without-bench ...
and to exclude that subtree from binary packages, and this was used in
many configurations.


In version 5.1, this option was removed, and "sql-bench" is now always
mentioned in "Makefile.am". An associated comment from a changeset done
on 2009-Nov-29 by Mr. Widenius reads
    Added back sql-bench directory, so that one can more easily run
    benchmarks on a server and add new benchmarks for new optimizations

However, "sql-bench" was not changed, its "README" still says
    These tests require a MySQL version of at least 3.20.28 or 3.21.10.
    Currently the following servers are supported:
    MySQL 3.20 and 3.21, PostgreSQL 6.#, mSQL 2.# and Solid Server 2.2
From checking the Bazaar history, I cannot see any recent contents
change in that subtree - just maintenance of license text (GPL v2) or
Perl path.


As this benchmark and system comparison part hasn't really been updated
for quite some time, I guess it may be obsolete for all users of current
versions:
1) I would like to re-introduce that configure option "--without-bench".
2) I propose to use it when building any binary package, because the
   reference data in that subtree are just old.

This does not mean to remove it from sources, just from binaries.

I would like to get your comments about this.


TIA,
Jörg

-- 
Joerg Bruehe,  MySQL Build Team,  Joerg.Bruehe@stripped
Sun Microsystems GmbH,   Komturstraße 18a,   D-12099 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering     Muenchen: HRB161028

Thread
Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binarypackages?Joerg Bruehe9 Feb
  • RE: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Vladislav Vaintroub9 Feb
    • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Joerg Bruehe9 Feb
  • re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?Michael Widenius10 Feb
    • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?MARK CALLAGHAN10 Feb
      • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Sergei Golubchik10 Feb
      • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?Michael Widenius11 Feb
        • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Patrick Galbraith11 Feb
          • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Michael Widenius10 Mar
            • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?Brian Aker10 Mar
              • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz14 Apr
                • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?Brian Aker14 Apr
                • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Konstantin Osipov14 Apr
                  • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful inbinary packages?Stewart Smith15 Apr
                    • Re: Cleanup proposal: Is the "sql-bench" subtree still useful in binary packages?Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz15 Apr