On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Tony Nelson wrote:
Rpmlib opened up a can of worms when it stole the signals in the first
place. Sure, it needs something like that in order to be robust in
the
face of stupidity or carelessness, but re-canning still takes a
bigger can.
Guy, you don't have a clue ...
rpm-3.0.x had *CATASTROPHIC* database failures.
Yes, whole machine, reinstall, scrub to bare disk.
Which is why the switch was made to Berkeley DB.
And a concurrent access model was chosen so the widdle
python script kiddies would not have to learn anything whatsoever
about database programming.
And you want to tell me that rpmlib "opened a can of worms"
because some idiot python programmers have decided to
reopen a Berkeley DB for every header instance in order
to handle ^C??????
This code was *STABLE* even if not perfect until a dweeb made a
change to yum
on September 3, 2006.
I haven't even begun to rip up yum yet. Taking a header instance
and saving it in a dictionary *RELEASING ALL LOCKS* is psychotic.
And delivering FC6 (and soon RHEL5) with this degree of instability,
refusing to upgrade rpm, blabbering on about forking rpm, and accusing
me of sabotaging the source code, when I am not part of FC, nor
@redhat.com, is plain and simply not my problem.
Whatever I'm doing, you and FC users are highly unlikely to gain any
benefit
whatsoever.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
