On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:33 PM, Tony Nelson wrote:
I haven't seen this come through.
At 3:19 PM +0800 11/27/06, Nerazzurri wrote:
None of the above should be considered criticism, just history.
There are two needs if one wants to protect against rpmdb data loss.
The most important is saving a copy of /var/lib/rpm/Packages
routinely.
All other information in an rpmdb can be regenerated from a
reasonably
recent copy of Packages. And in most cases a depsolver like
yum/smart/apt/poldek
will reinstall the packages that have changed since the last copy of
Packages
was saved.
but how can i know which version of "/var/lib/rpm/Packages" is
correct
and work well, if i backup a corrupted "Packages", the backup work
will
be senseless, isnt it? :-)
The "right" way would be to make a copy of the Packages file, check
it, and
only save it if the check passes. According to Jeff, the proper
check is
to do a "rpm --rebuilddb" with that Packages file and see if it
works, but
I haven't tried that method.
Sorry for not replying.
Doing --rebuildib is not the "proper" check, nor is --rebuilddb the
only check.
What I tried to say is
1) Doing --verifydb does not verify the data in an rpmdb, but
only verifies
the Berkeley DB structural elements.
2) All the essential data is in Packages, the indices can be
rebuilt by --rebuilddb
whenever needed.
3) The integrity of headers contained in Packages is verfied
when the header
is read from an rpmdb.
There are very few cases of damaged headers in Packages that have
been reported
to me in the last 2 years, none that were not easily detectable and
fixed.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
