On 13.1.2016 13:48, Florian Festi wrote: > On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100 >> Jan Kurik <jkurik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat = >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat >>> >>> Change owner(s): >>> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com > >>> >>> >>> Change format of the RPM Database from Berkeley DB to RPM's own >>> format. >>> >>> == Detailed Description == >>> The current implementation of the RPM Database is based on Berkeley >>> DB. There are doubts about the its future and level of maintenance. In >>> addition rpm's use of the database has multiple issues on its own. As >>> a result RPM upstream is working to replace the database format with a >>> new implementation. >> >> does it mean rpm is changing from Berkeley DB library to another >> library or to a completely new implementation of a database engine? > > We change to our own format. One of the problem is the bit special > requirements of rpm where you want to have non privileged readers that > must not have any write access - which is required for most databases > for locking. I'm curious! Would it be possible to elaborate on reasons why no existing DB was good enough for RPM? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086784#c8 indicates that this locking requirement is not a problem/obstacle for using LMDB. Thank you for your time! -- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
