[arch-dev-public] [Draft] MariaDB 10.0 enters [extra]

[Pierre Schmitz]

Am 17.05.2014 14:40, schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski:
> Hi guys,
> 
> New MariaDB is sitting in [testing] for a while now. It's temporarily
> built using Clang, mainly because new gcc snapshot hasn't fixed
> segfaults for everyone. I want to resolve it before moving anything,
> but in the meantime I wrote an announcement draft.
> 
> Title: MariaDB 10.0 enters [extra]
> 
> Content:
> A new major release of MariaDB will be moved to [extra] soon. The 
> change
> in versioning scheme has been made to clearly distinguish provided
> functionality from MySQL 5.6. From now on, it won't be possible to
> easily move between various MySQL implementations provided in the
> official repositories.

I guess the client library remains compatible or do we need to recompile 
packages? ATM we also provide MySQL 5.6 by packaging the percona fork. 
It provides the mariadb version as well, is that still sensible with 10 
starting to be incompatible with mysql?

> Due to major changes in MariaDB 10.0, it is recommended (although not
> necessary) to dump the tables before upgrading and reloading the dump
> file afterwards. After upgrading to the new version don't forget to
> restart `mysqld.service` and run `mysql_upgrade` to check the databases
> for possible errors.

Why is it recommend to reload from a dump? Some more details would be 
good, as this is not easily doable (without a longer downtime) for users 
with large databases.

> Additionally TokuDB storage engine has been disabled because of
> repeating build failures. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Well, we provide this with our current 5.5 packages? What happens to 
those who use this? Instead of the "I am sorry.." part, better link to 
the upstream bug report.

> For detailed information on changes and upgrade steps, please refer to
> [MariaDB Knowledge
> Base](https://mariadb.com/kb/en/what-is-mariadb-100/) and [MySQL
> Reference
> Manual](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/upgrading.html).

In addition to this, is the gcc 4.9 issue reported somewhere and the 
"workaround" confirmed? This bug seems to destroy the db files, so we 
better be sure.

Greetings,

Pierre

-- 
Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com