Existing code has a serious performance problem with package uninstallation on bigger installations (a lot of transactions or a lot of packages in the system) interfering with the system upgrade. Moreover, database scheme has significantly changed - that would require another, relatively complex transformation script and cause issues with rollback. In addition, SWDB API has changed again and a lot of stuff is being moved to C++.
I definitely don't agree with cherry-picking the old version, it would cause a big mess. Consider upstream SWDB version being a proof of concept - it works, but it has some issues to be fixed.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> Even if it does, it should have been advertised as a system-wide change
>> for F28 which is no longer possible.
>
> FESCo could approve an exception.
>
> If this really makes package updates made through PackageKit show up in DNF
> history, IMHO, it would be worth considering at least. (But of course not if
> it breaks things.)
>
SWDB could be cherry-picked out into the current DNF stuff. There was
a point where it worked with the existing code before the rewrite of
libdnf in C++ started.
The DNF team could also give a better idea of when the current rewrite
stuff will stabilize.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
