On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > >>=== Upgrading === > >>* Ability to upgrade is not affected > >>* After upgrade completes, manual action (rpmdb --rebuilddb) will > >>probably be needed to convert to sqlite. Alternatively user can change > >>configuration to stay on BDB. > > > >Do I understand correctly: > >- without the manual step, users will remain on the old format > >- with the old format, in F33 everything will still work fine, but > > after upgrade to F34, the database will become read-only > > > >Why is an automatic 'rpmdb --rebuilddb' not part of upgrade plan? > > To repeat what I said in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2360: Hi, thanks for quick answer and sorry for double-posting. I started reading the fesco ticket, then the change page, then the discussion here, and forgot to read the rest of the comment on the ticket. I also posted there, but I think it's better to discuss here. I'll copy my post from there here, sorry for the mess. > I left it open on purpose (note the "probably" in there) as there > would be any number of ways to achieve the rebuild with varying > degrees of automation and opt-out opportunities, depending on what > is actually desireable for Fedora. > > One possibility could be adding a rebuild step to dnf system-upgrade > plugin, rebuilding the db after distro upgrades is not a bad idea > regardless of db format changes (at least BDB performance would > gradually degrade unless rebuilt every now and then). That would > leave people doing the (unspeakable) distro-sync upgrade to deal > with database format manually, which might be just the right balance > of freedom. Or not, I dunno. Other possibilities include planting a > one-shot service that does the db rebuild on the next reboot and > decommissions itself afterwards in the rpm package itself. Other > variations certainly exist. > > Suggestions welcome, just as long as you don't suggest rebuilding > from rpm %posttrans :) Right. I realize %posttrans is not a good idea. But *some* mechanism is necessary, because without that the change will mostly be a noop for most users. So I think this needs to be decided somehow. Quoting from the FESCo ticket: About the various implementation options: - in dnf system-upgrade: this does not cover normal 'dnf --releasever=33 upgrade' upgrades (as you mentioned earlier), but it also does not cover packagekit upgrades. It'd also create a previous-release-blocker(s) and previous-previous-release-blockers(s), since the changes would need to be deployed in F32 and F31. Also note that the last time when the upgrade plugins run code is in upgrade phase between two reboots, and the plugin is running pre-upgrade code. This code would then invoke post-upgrade rpm. It's certainly doable, but seems a bit funky. - a one-shot service: this is easier to implement, it just needs to happen in one place. The hard part is making sure that the machine does not get reboot while the upgrade is happening. This is in particular a problem with VMs and containers. The rebuild should be wrapped with systemd-inhibit and other guards to make it hard to interrupt. No matter how it wrapped, is the upgrade itself atomic? Having the new db built under a temporary file name and then atomically rename(2)d into place would be ideal. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
