hi, On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 07:52 +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > An unfortunate string of events lead me to upgrade a server from sarge to > etch, using the mysql-server-4.1 package and stupidly assuming that a > package with the package name "mysql-server-4.1" would contain a MySQL > server version 4.1. Cost me quite some time to undo the damage (juggling > backup tapes, merging database contents etc.) because one application is > not entirely MySQL 5 compatible and thus partly corrupted the database. > > Providing no transition path is better than this. If aptitude had told me > that it needs to uninstall mysql-server-4.1, I'd have noticed. um, shouldn't the fact that an upgrade of mysql-server-4.1 started installing a package named "mysql-server-5.0" have been a good hint? anyway, this issue is moot in >= etch, since we've adopted a new versioning scheme which should avoid messes like this in the future. currently we have an empty "mysql-server" package which depends on the "recommended" version of mysql-server-NN, and no transitioning occurs otherwise (similar to how linux-image is dealt with). the only problem was to get from sarge to this without leaving anyone behind, we had to grease the wheels for the 4.1 users a bit. and anyway, even if you hadn't been forced along the upgrade path, i'm not sure that you would have liked the results, since there's no mysql-client 4.1 package in etch, nor are there libmysqlclient14 (the 4.1 libraries) libraries, so stuff could very well have completely broken anyway (though admittedly that'd be a bit easier to fix in your situation). sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part