> Hmmm, this smells like rpm-4.0.4 or earlier. That the case? Yes, this particular build server is running version 4.0.4. > The solution will be to participate in the locking scheme > that rpm uses, basically shared/exclusive fcntl locks on > /var/lib/rpm/Packages. How would I find out what specific process(es) has a shared/exclusive fcntl lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages? TIA, Shawn > -----Original Message----- > From: rpm-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:rpm-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 3:23 PM > To: RPM Package Manager > Subject: Re: Read-only lock on RPM db > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:49:11PM -0700, Shawn Weber wrote: > > We have an automated third-party tool that builds a tree of > code, called > > CruiseControl which some of you might be familiar with. > Occasionally, > > an automated build will fail when trying to acquire a > read-only lock > > on the rpm database. > > > > Probably because another process has an exclusive fcntl lock. > > > The error message itself looks something like this in the logs: > > > > error: cannot get shared lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages > > error: cannot open Packages index using db3 - Operation not > permitted > > (1) > > Hmmm, this smells like rpm-4.0.4 or earlier. That the case? > > > > > The main problem is that this error confuses a developer, since the > > error message that our automated build system > (CruiseControl) returns > > is rather cryptic and the detailed build log must usually > be inspected > > to determine that this is the root cause of the problem. > > > > Does anyone know what can be done to alleviate this error from > > occasionally occuring, such as explicitly locking and unlocking the > > db? > > > > The solution will be to participate in the locking scheme > that rpm uses, basically shared/exclusive fcntl locks on > /var/lib/rpm/Packages. > > The first step, however, is gonna be to understand what > process has the exclusive lock, as you will not be able to > get a shared lock until the exclusive lock is relinquished. > > Alternatively, use Berkeley DB concurrent access locks, been > in "production" rpm since rpm-4.1 (currently rpm-4.3.2 > something) several years now, and > (mostly) avoids fcntl locks entirely. > > 73 de Jeff > > -- > Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ > jbj@xxxxxxxxxx (jbj@xxxxxxx) > Chapel Hill, NC > > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm-list mailing list > Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list > _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
