On 09/13/10 at 01:52pm, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:

On 13 September 2010 09:31, Nathan O wrote:

...

Mysqle http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20376 appears to be the same as mysql in the extra repositories.

I see that there are some patches included atop the [extra] package. The funny thing is that they are not included in the package. I guess that it can be safely removed. Any opinion about this?

I'm going under the ASSumption that the e in mysqle is for Extra (ie. the patches) As it is patched above and beyond the extra version I'd vote for keeping.

Probably if somebody updated the package to the latest version, I would think it would end up being the same as mysql in the official mysql package. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM, jwbirdsong < jwbirdsong@jwbirdsong.homelinux.com> wrote:

...

On 09/13/10 at 01:52pm, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:

...

On 13 September 2010 09:31, Nathan O wrote:

...

Mysqle http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20376 appears to be

...

...

...

as mysql in the extra repositories.

I see that there are some patches included atop the [extra] package. The funny thing is that they are not included in the package. I guess that it can be safely removed. Any opinion about this?

I'm going under the ASSumption that the e in mysqle is for Extra (ie. the

On 09/13/2010 09:39 AM, J. W. Birdsong wrote: the same patches)

...

As it is patched above and beyond the extra version I'd vote for keeping.

the above statement would apply only IF the patches are still valid when tried to apply against current version (5.15.0) . (Didn't notice pkg was flagged OOD until after I replied)

Thanks 2010/9/14 Lukáš Jirkovský

...

Probably if somebody updated the package to the latest version, I would think it would end up being the same as mysql in the official mysql

On 14 September 2010 07:18, Nathan O wrote: package.

...

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM, jwbirdsong < jwbirdsong@jwbirdsong.homelinux.com> wrote:

I think so. Given it doesn't contain necessary sources I removed it.