maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Peter Laursen <peter_laursen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me add that the 'mysql-essentials' download package is very popular with
Windows users (it includes InnoDB, though!). I think MariaDB should be
careful not to make the default download too big.  Not that bandwidth and
disk space is a big problem for most users nowadays. But it seems people
want a small package for evaluation.   MariaDB download is/will be
significantly larger than a 'parallel' MySQL and that itself can be a
'stopper' for popularization.  98% of users do not care about tests and
rarely used clients and scripts. They want *the basic database
functionality* only (but don't mistake: I am a big PBXT fan and that should
be included as default - as it already is with the XAMPP 'bundle' package
and has been for around 6 months or so).
.
Peter
Webyog
.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 22:53, Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Henrik
>
> On 05/11/2009, at 11:44 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
>> Just to throw another idea out there, we've had talks about
>> re-introducing something like mariadb-max packaging. The idea would be
>> that a basic mariadb install should not only be stable, but for most
>> people should be reasonably small. Having a separate package that then
>> includes more engines and other plugins, would allow users to choose
>> to stick with just the standard package, or the -max package as they
>> prefer.
>>
>
> Interesting idea! some notes below
>
>  I think even InnoDB was first introduced in mysql-max binaries (?), so
>> it is not a bad precedent to follow.
>>
>
>
> Yes it was, however to the present day people still believe that MySQL 3.23
> and 4.0 did not have InnoDB.
> And of course later the MaxDB (aka SAP DB) confusion was added to that. A
> giant fail in product clarity.
>
> Currently, the builds are all actually -max. So they would have to be
> modified to be "standard" so we can add new things to -max, or we create a
> new "bleeding edge" group. Antony was commenting to me the other day how it
> was a pity that his nice architecture for plugin groups had never been
> utilised beyond -max!
>
> In the OurDelta 5.0 builds we have a -sail build (aka sailing close to the
> wind) which admittedly is not particularly descriptive, but neither does it
> cause confusion. If people don't know they won't use it, and if they do know
> they use it when they want. The -sail build simply has a few more patches on
> top of the basic set. This includes some experimental InnoDB patches from
> Yasufumi, and now also OQGRAPH.
> It's a nice way to introduce new code without disrupting existing stability
> for those who prefer that.
>
> So yes, conceptually we could do something similar with MariaDB, but we
> need different naming. The -max thing is polluted.
> But, if we're only adding additional plugins, it does not need to be a
> different main package, but simply an "extra" package that people can
> install optionally. It has the same effect as my suggested
> mariadb-pluginname packaging, except it's a big bundle instead of all
> separate.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Arjen.
> --
> Arjen Lentz, Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com)
> Exceptional Services for MySQL at a fixed budget.
>
> Follow our blog at http://openquery.com/blog/
> OurDelta: packages for MySQL and MariaDB @ http://ourdelta.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> Post to     : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>