The RPM database should be verified more often than it is now. I've posted on this topic to the fedora-devel list. 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 the RPM database should be verified on a regular basis. I have written a utility, rpm_verify_db, to automatically verify and repair the RPM database, via a daily cron job. Reports of errors are syslog'd, emailed to root, and shown by logwatch. It could be incorporated into the RPM package, or even Yum. It can be found at <http://georgeanelson.com/rpm-verifydb.htm>. 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 my proposed verification and repair methods criticised by authentic RPM developers. I will be away for a few days, starting tomorrow, Thursday, US Thanksgiving holiday. -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' The Great Writ <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' is no more. <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
