View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0034886 | mantisbt | installation | public | 2024-10-22 13:29 | 2025-05-29 05:40 |
Reporter | decklin | Assigned To | dregad | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | assigned | Resolution | open | ||
Product Version | 2.27.0 | ||||
Target Version | 2.28.0 | ||||
Summary | 0034886: Admin checks: support MariaDB version checking | ||||
Description | MySQL Lifecycle and Release Support data availability | ||||
Steps To Reproduce | run admin\check on my system | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
related to | 0034909 | assigned | dregad | Admin checks: unsupported version checks using endoflife.date |
has duplicate | 0036015 | closed | dregad | Release information for MySQL 10.1 series is not available, unable to perform the lifecycle checks. |
related to | 0034887 | closed | dregad | MySQL version 9.0 and 9.1 are not defined in Admin Checks |
Thanks for the report. As far as I know, there is no such thing as MySQL 10.5 (the latest available version as of this writing is 9.1). I therefore suppose you are using MariaDB (or some other MySQL fork). We rely on ADOdb to detect the database version, and unfortunately that is currently quite limited, as the library only gives us a version number without information about the RDBMS, so we have no way of knowing whether it's MySQL, MariaDB or something else without bypassing ADOdb. For now, considering that our minimum requirement is 5.5.35, you can safely ignore this Admin Check warning.. In the interest of improving this in the future, could you please provide the exact DB version you're using, then execute the following 2 queries against your DB and report the results here ?
I will add the latest MySQL releases to the reference table (9.0 & 9.1). |
|
See 0034887 |
|
It is MariaDB - on a quick look I couldn't see the version number, will get back to you. |
|
See attached :-) 10.5.25 |
|
Thanks but you have a typo in the 2nd query, it should have been |
|
Aplogies - old eyes! |
|
@decklin this should be covered by 0034909 If you want to test the proposed fix, your feedback would be welcome. Please see https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/2042 |
|