On 01/13/2016 04:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: >> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch >>> just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format >> >> I don't think anyone said there was a need to reinstall from scratch. > > Well the feature writeup is rather fuzzy on this. It says that in Fedora > 24 rpm will be able to read both old and new format, but it also says > that future RPM versions will drop support for the old format. Yes, this is exactly what I meant to say. > So unless > there is a mandatory data format conversion during some Fedora upgrade, > then at some point RPM will cease to be able to read existing installs > with the old format which could imply a need to reinstall. Yes, dropping the support for the old format will be a separate System wide change for some future Fedora release. Looking at all those questions about managing containers and VMs we might take a longer time than our BDB folks may like. > IMHO the feature proposal text needs to be more explicit about the upgrade > path and exactly when any data conversion will take place, to avoid leaving > existing installs with old format stuck with Fedora 25 rpm (or later) drops > BDB support entirely. Well, the update path that will always will be available is doing a rpmdb --exportdb with the old rpm version and an rpmdb --importdb with the new version. The format of the rpm header will stay compatible so getting them out and then back into the DB solves the problem. Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
