Re: Why does dovecot require mysql?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:41, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 13:32, Scot L. Harris wrote:
> > > 
> > > What is supposed to happen on an FC2 system that has (and needs)
> > > mysql 4.x installed, and the current dovecot update now depends
> > > on mysql 3.23.x?
> > 
> > Very good question!  Another problem with feature creep.  If mysql 4.x
> > was installed from source dovecot would not install unless mysql 3.23.x
> > was installed via rpm.  But if mysql 4.x was installed via rpm I would
> > expect dovecot to accept mysql 3.23.x and anything above that.  If it is
> > written to look for 3.23.x specifically then you would have to strip
> > dovecot off and install dovecot from source.
> 
> It wasn't a theoretical question:
> 
> I will install/upgrade these to satisfy the dependencies:
> [deps: perl-DBD-MySQL 2.9003-4.i386]
> [deps: mysql 3.23.58-9.1.i386]
> Is this ok [y/N]: n
> 
> What happens if I answer yes?

Well depending on where your mysql 4.x packages are installed you may
end up stepping all over it and breaking things.  

Did you install mysql from source or rpm?

Based on the discussion in bugzilla it looks like if you hold off for
awhile they may fix this issue.  

Comment from bugzilla #145241

Additional Comment #16 From John Dennis (jdennis@xxxxxxxxxx)  on
2005-01-17 13:40 ------- 
The dependency on postgres and mysql was a mistake, it should have
been only on the client libraries. Warren correctly points out rpm's
automatic dependency generation would have picked up the dependency.
An earlier tester had reported a problem with missing a dependency on
libpq.so which is why it was added (but should not have been needed).

As for dependency creep with respect to FC2. It was recognized that
FC2 did not have dependency on either the postgres or mysql client
libraries. I had an internal discussion as to whether an upgrade could
or should exert a new dependency on libraries and the opinion was that
it was O.K. But from the response here its obvious this undesirable
and I will revert the FC2 requirements.

This is my planned course of action:

For FC2 do not build with mysql and postgres support, it was not
present in FC2 previously and that will remain consistent.

For FC3, continue to build with mysql and postgres, this is consistent
with the FC3 build.

For devel(A.K.A. FC4) build using the loadable module approach and
introduce sub-packages that provide those modules. This creates an
"lightweight" main package but provides for site configurable extension.

-- 
Scot L. Harris
webid@xxxxxxxxxx

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers. 


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux