List:Packagers« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Jeremy Cole Date:September 18 2007 11:17pm
Subject:Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise source
View as plain text  
Hi Colin,

> There are obviously more planned features, besides your own profiling 
> patch. I believe the patch queue log is public, even

Huh?  How can that even be true given the recent announcement of 
"nothing new in 5.0" and discussion of the failure of the split?  My 
understanding (from Kaj's posts) is that there will be nothing new at 
all in 5.0-community, meaning the only difference henceforth will be 
release frequency.

> Its still GPLv2, and its not closed source. So tarballs are available 
> only to Enterprise customers, via enterprise.mysql.com

And to anyone via mirror.provenscaling.com.

> Since distributions don't normally *ship* every month, how does this 
> make it worse for our user base?

Mainly because there is now a highly artificial delay in getting bug 
fixes out to normal users.  Why should a distro maintainer put up with 
that artificial delay?

> Distributions typically ship once every 6-9 months, with the exception 
> of Gentoo and FreeBSD who have a different sort of packaging system that 
> handles "ports"
> 
> So, frankly, every bit of software you get on your distribution is 
> mostly *outdated*. Providing one source release once every 3 months (90 
> days) ensures that distributions are actually getting the freshest copy 
> of MySQL Community, and during their "support cycle" can release another 
> update in another 3 months, even

This all assumes that MySQL is stable.  Note that 5.0 has proven to be 
not so stable.  Anyone on 5.0 has been upgrading quite often to fix 
stupid bugs, unless they're on 5.0.27 (which has been the most stable 
release in recent history).

>> Given the above, this actually doesn't make much sense, since we are 
>> using MySQL's own tarballs on DorsalSource (and mirror.ps), there is no 
>> need to rename them.
> 
> Yes, there is. I believe you cannot call it MySQL Enterprise, because 
> that in itself is trademarked

No, the source releases do not have enterprise in the name, that gets 
introduced in the build process and only appears on the resulting 
binaries.  So by distributing the source releases (called e.g. 
mysql-5.0.48.tar.gz) it is not possible to be encroaching on the 
enterprise trademark.

The DorsalSource builds also take care to not use "enterprise" in the 
name, they are merely MySQL builds with even version numbers.  You'll 
notice that the only place "enterprise" even appears is to name the 
"branch" from which the sources come, which I believe should be fair game.

> This is meant to *help* distributions (though I can see this being 
> negative towards Gentoo or FreeBSD whom have no "release" concept - 
> everything is latest)

Yeah, I don't see it.

Regards,

Jeremy

-- 
high performance mysql consulting
www.provenscaling.com
Thread
Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceRobin H. Johnson10 Sep
  • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJoerg Bruehe10 Sep
    • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceRobin H. Johnson11 Sep
      • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceMichael Shigorin11 Sep
      • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceColin Charles18 Sep
        • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceMichael Shigorin18 Sep
        • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJeremy Cole19 Sep
          • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceColin Charles19 Sep
          • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJoerg Bruehe20 Sep
            • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJeremy Cole20 Sep
              • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJoerg Bruehe20 Sep
            • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceCristian Gafton21 Sep
        • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceRobin H. Johnson19 Sep
    • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceMichael Shigorin11 Sep
  • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceColin Charles18 Sep
    • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceRobin H. Johnson19 Sep
Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJeremy Cole11 Sep
  • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceColin Charles18 Sep
    • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceMichael Shigorin18 Sep
      • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceColin Charles18 Sep
        • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceRobin H. Johnson19 Sep
        • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceMichael Shigorin19 Sep
    • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceJeremy Cole19 Sep
      • Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceColin Charles19 Sep
Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise sourceCristian Gafton21 Sep