On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 18:36, David Hoffman wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:58:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram > <rahulsundaram@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi > > > > > > > > OK, OK, so not that the other ones were wrong, but just not all as > > > easy as they could be. Getting the SRPMS and building from scratch > > > really isn't necessary when mysql.org already has compiled RPMs that > > > work. > > > > upgrading fc3 mysql packages with those from mysql.org may not work properly > > > > You say "MAY" not work properly. What are you basing that on? > > I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't done it successfully. It worked > fine for me. Just to stick another two cents into this thread... :) One obvious problem I can think of is that with many packages distributed with Fedora the spec file has been rewritten to put things in different directories than the authors of the packages do. Sort of like installing a package from a tar ball, normally those packages install under /usr/local instead of where the rpms install. I am wondering if there is a way to confirm that the spec files are the same between what fedora distributes and Mysql distributes? If so and the revision numbers are maintained correctly then you may be able to do an upgrade just fine. As I understand rpm if either of those items differ you may not get the upgrade you were hoping for. You might end up with two mysql packages installed. Not a problem as long as you use the tools from one package and not the other one. But mixing them could be a disaster waiting to happen. Personally, the last time I setup a system for a company I downloaded and installed the major production packages from tar ball. I had more control over them and was able to apply patches as they came out instead of waiting for someone to bake an rpm with them. This included apache, php, and postgresql in this case. -- Scot L. Harris webid@xxxxxxxxxx With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?
