On Friday 04 May 2007 08:45, sean finney wrote: > 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. > 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? Yes, certainly. As I said, it was an unfortunate string of events, I should have noticed. But having a package with the version number in it that doesn't contain that version was still, IMHO not the way to do it. > 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). Fine so far. > 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. ... who might habe been just as happy to continue using 4.1 ... and, if necessary, update to 5.0 manually later on. Anyway, it's done etc. so EOD. cheers -- vbi -- A real person has two reasons for doing anything ... a good reason and the real reason.
Attachment:
pgpLqkhF97kft.pgp
Description: PGP signature