drizzle-plugin-mysql-client conflicts

Bug #669744 reported by m00dawg
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Drizzle
Invalid
Undecided
Monty Taylor
7.0
Invalid
Undecided
Monty Taylor

Bug Description

After the recent DEB updates, I noticed that drizzle-plugin-mysql-client conflicts with mysql-server:

root@mcp:~# apt-get install drizzle-plugin-mysql-protocol
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  mysql-server mysql-server-5.1
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  drizzle-plugin-mysql-protocol
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 2 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 355kB of archives.
After this operation, 15.4MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? n
Abort.

I kinda need MySQL though on the server as I will need MySQL to migrate things over. I'm not sure exactly why there is a conflict here though?

Tags: 10.04 ubuntu
Revision history for this message
Andrew Hutchings (linuxjedi) wrote :

I believe this is intentional. You don't need mysql protocol plugin to migrate stuff as there is the drizzle protocol plugin. All the mysql protocol plugin does is make drizzle listen on port 3306, so the conflict would be intentional as there would be a port conflict out-of-the-box. Port 4427 still understands the MySQL protocol and all drizzle clients now use that.

What I am basically saying is you probably don't need drizzle-plugin-mysql-protocol.

I will assign to mtaylor anyway to confirm what I said above.

Changed in drizzle:
assignee: nobody → Monty Taylor (mordred)
Revision history for this message
Clint Byrum (clint-fewbar) wrote :

Monty, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the intention was to have this package just contain the configuration specifying to listen on port 3306, but the binary for the plugin stored elsewhere.

m00dawg, the conflict arises because they both try to listen on port 3306.

Revision history for this message
m00dawg (tim-moocowproductions) wrote :

Aha gotcha. Hmm then my problem may relate to something else then but I will play around with things and get back to you on that. If the only intention of the package is to pre-configure the MySQL port then, yes, this bug can likely be closed as not a bug :)

Thanks for the explanation though! It's always a pleasure to work with you folks on these things!

Revision history for this message
Lee Bieber (kalebral-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Per Monty closing as not a bug

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.