On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 18:10 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On 11/29/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > but we're not doing updates to a database in that way. > > > > The only time yum is doing the quick open-read-closes of the rpmdb is > > when it is reading in the info from the rpmdb or getting prco info from > > a package. Yum switched from: > > open rpmdb ro, and use that for all ro interactions > > to > > open rpmdb ro, get the index number of the header for a package, save > > the index number into a dict, close the rpmdb (repeat) > > > > The index number is not guaranteed to remain constant just because yum opened > an rpmdb ro and then closed. > > > > > There's no updating going on. > > > > Yep. Index retrieved, saved in dict, rpmdb closed. No update there. > > The next question is > What does yum do to guarantee that the index number from the dict > is meaningful > when it actually *does* get around to doing an update? > > And if the answer is that > Yum has its own locks. > well, that ain't good enough in the real world, /bin/rpm certainly > does not pay attention > to yum locks, for one easy reproducer. > I'm not saying yum does guarantee those. I'm asking why does the above cause the rpmdb to have errors? -sv _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
