| Bug #59188 | Windows Community versions downloads - 5.5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted: | 27 Dec 2010 17:05 | Modified: | 10 Feb 2011 17:01 |
| Reporter: | Lig Isler-Turmelle | Email Updates: | |
| Status: | Closed | Impact on me: | |
| Category: | MySQL Server: Documentation | Severity: | S3 (Non-critical) |
| Version: | 5.5 | OS: | Any |
| Assigned to: | Paul DuBois | CPU Architecture: | Any |
[27 Dec 2010 17:05]
Lig Isler-Turmelle
[3 Jan 2011 19:11]
Joerg Bruehe
The bug report is correct, the deliverables for Windows have changed from 5.1 to 5.5. I'm sorry I don't know the reasoning for this, just the result: - With 5.5, we produce an installer package in "msi" format for Windows (like we already did with 5.1). This should be identical to the 5.1 "complete" package. - We also produce a package in "zip" format which does not contain an installer. This is (AFAIK) identical to the "noinstall" zip package of 5.1, but the part "noinstall" has been dropped from the file name. - There is no "essentials" package in 5.5, this has been dropped. The above holds for both 32- and 64-bit packages.
[3 Jan 2011 22:36]
Jon Stephens
Note that we have two files labeled only "Windows (x86, 32-bit), ZIP". While the names and sizes shown for the files are different, there's nothing to suggest what's different between the files in terms of usage.
[4 Jan 2011 2:41]
Jon Stephens
This is what we have for Windows: There are 3 packages (including the source package): 1. Windows MSI installer packages, in 2 versions (32- and 64-bit). RECOMMENDATIONS: These 2 packages appear to be labeled correctly; I recommend no change. 2. Windows packages which require manual installation, in 2 versions (32- and 64-bit). These used to be called "no-install" packages. RECOMMENDATIONS: I agree that the "no-install" tag in the filenames was confusing and misleading, and it is good that we've dropped it. However, we must make it clear to users that these packages require manual installation and setup. Therefore, I recommend that these packages include "manual-install" in their filenames. 3. Windows source. It is implied that this package is 32-bit only, which is not true; you should (AFAIK) be able to build 32-bit or 64-bit binaries from this source package. RECOMMENDATIONS: We should remove the "32-bit" tag from this package. We should make it clear that this package contains source code only; I recommend we include of the tags "source" or "source-only" in the filename. (1) & (2) are both the same as the old "complete" packages. The difference between them is that (1) provides an automated installation process (called the Installation Wizard, IIRC), while (2) has to be installed manually. (3) is source code that has to be compiled using MS Visual Studio, the end product of which is basically the same as (2). FURTHER RECOMMENDATION: These packages are presented in the order (1) - (3) - (2) (that is, auto-installer - source - manual install) on the downloads page. I recommend they be shown instead in the order I've used above (auto-installer - manual install - source), which is the traditional (and IMHO) sensible order. In addition, I really don't understand why we have a separate *Windows* source package for 5.5.8, in light of our recent conversion to CMake which was supposed to make it possible to build from the same source on all platforms that we support. Is this not in fact what happened? RECOMMENDATION: If we're trying to say "This is a copy of the 5.5.8 source archived in ZIP format [rather than .tar.gz or whatever archive format] for easy decompression on Windows" then we should say so; we should not make it sound as though the source code itself is different.
[4 Jan 2011 3:25]
Jon Stephens
It should be noted that the issues with the Downloads page which I've outlined above cannot be rectified by the Docs Team, as the mysql.com website apart from the online documentation (dev.mysql.com/doc) is handled by a different team (Web).
[4 Jan 2011 3:40]
Paul DuBois
"In addition, I really don't understand why we have a separate *Windows* source package for 5.5.8, in light of our recent conversion to CMake which was supposed to make it possible to build from the same source on all platforms that we support." In 5.5, we don't really have a separate Windows source package. We have the same source, available as a .tar.gz or .zip package. So it's really just an accommodation to the unpacking tool that users prefer. To the extent that either package is identified with a particular platform on the downloads page, that could be considered an artifact that is a holdover from pre-5.5 days, for which the .zip package was specific to Windows.
[10 Feb 2011 16:47]
Paul DuBois
"- We also produce a package in "zip" format which does not contain an installer. This is (AFAIK) identical to the "noinstall" zip package of 5.1, but the part "noinstall" has been dropped from the file name." If the package no longer has "noinstall" in the name, perhaps we should call it something different from "The Noinstall Package"? It seems to me that "noinstall" becomes a confusing and meaningless nomenclature.
[10 Feb 2011 16:48]
Paul DuBois
"noinstall" is a goofy name, anyway. It implies you're not installing anything. :-)
[10 Feb 2011 17:01]
Paul DuBois
Thank you for your bug report. This issue has been addressed in the documentation. The updated documentation will appear on our website shortly, and will be included in the next release of the relevant products. I have corrected the name of the Complete package file to end with .msi rather than .zip (which was changed as of 5.1), and removed the Essentials material from the manual. I think any remaining issues lie with the web team, because docs has no control over what appears on the downloads page.
