Hi,

I just have to install a PHP frontend to a database app, which "requires
MySQL 4.0 or 4.1". The machine is running Slack 11.0 with MySQL 5.0 on it,
and I wonder if this version is backwards-compatible, or if I have to
rebuild an older version.

Cheers,

Niki Kovacs
--
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one frequently goes ranting on and on at
ball-breaking length. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,
first draft.

Le Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:06:13 +0100, Niki Kovacs a écrit*:

> Hi,
>
> I just have to install a PHP frontend to a database app, which "requires
> MySQL 4.0 or 4.1". The machine is running Slack 11.0 with MySQL 5.0 on it,
> and I wonder if this version is backwards-compatible, or if I have to
> rebuild an older version.

I'll answer this myself, and add another question. No, MySQL 5.0 is not
fully backwards-compatible, according to a MySQL forum I just found.

I have the sources + SlackBuild for MySQL 4.1.4 from Slackware 10.2.
Question: as far as I reckon, the only thing I have to change in there, is
replace -mcpu=i686 by -mtune=i686? Right?

Niki Kovacs

Niki Kovacs wrote:

>Le Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:06:13 +0100, Niki Kovacs a écrit :
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I just have to install a PHP frontend to a database app, which "requires
>>MySQL 4.0 or 4.1". The machine is running Slack 11.0 with MySQL 5.0 on it,
>>and I wonder if this version is backwards-compatible, or if I have to
>>rebuild an older version.
>>
>>
>
>I'll answer this myself, and add another question. No, MySQL 5.0 is not
>fully backwards-compatible, according to a MySQL forum I just found.
>
>
Nope, tis not (fully).

>I have the sources + SlackBuild for MySQL 4.1.4 from Slackware 10.2.
>Question: as far as I reckon, the only thing I have to change in there, is
>replace -mcpu=i686 by -mtune=i686? Right?
>
>
Why not remove the 5.0 package and install the 4.x package?

>Niki Kovacs
>
>

--
This message is a private communication. It may contain information that is confidential and legally protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient, please do not read, copy or use this message or any attachments, and do not disclose them to others. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and they delete it and any attachments from your system.

Thank you,

Solucient LLC

Thomas Ronayne wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> --
> This message is a private communication. It may contain information
> that is confidential and legally protected from disclosure. If you
> are not an intended recipient, please do not read, copy or use this
> message or any attachments, and do not disclose them to others.
> Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this
> message, and they delete it and any attachments from your system.

First, that message was not private, it was published on a usenet
newsgroup for general dissemination to anyone whatsoever. So
please dispense with the sig entirely.

Secondly, that sig grossly exceeded the requirements for maximum
line length on usenet. 80 is an absolute maximum, but 72 or 65 is
preferable.

Thirdly, obscuring your reply-to field is an exercize in futility.
The reply-to is not normally visible to the spammers searches, but
the from field is, and thus should be the one obscured.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>