The RPM database should be verified more often than it is now. With FC6 there has been a spate of RPM database corruption. It happened to me: though there may have been incipient corruption in my FC5, after --rebuilddb and upgrading successfully I found more corruption later. This brings up that the RPM database is just assumed to work, but isn't being checked until it falls over. I propose that there should be a nightly cron task to check the RPM database with --verifydb, which would also attempt automatic repair (if the Packages file is OK). I am developing and testing a shell script to do this. Currently it seems to work when run manually; we'll see what happens tonight. It logs its actions in syslog via logger. I expect that logwatch will inform root by email. I propose that Anaconda should check the RPM database before starting an upgrade to an existing installation. Checking takes under a minute on my system, so it should not be objectionable. Anaconda should offer to repair a damaged RPM database (if the Package file is OK) before proceeding with the installation. I suggest that the --verifydb command should not be undocumented in RPM and its manpage. This seems to be on purpose, but I think it is a mistake. I would like some feedback about these proposals. If they are acceptable I will file RFE bugs on them. My knowlege of things RPM is superficial. It would be a good idea to have the proposed verification and repair methods criticised by authentic RPM developers, but I'm not sure where they hang out -- the Redhat Rpm-list appears to be for RPM users. -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' The Great Writ <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' is no more. <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
