Hmm, so it seems. Probably memories getting mixed up with BDB which I do think
supports multi-process notification (which of course is all part of the reason
its such a weird beeast). Since we can't really expect help from the database
itself here, so the options are limited.
--
You are
I don't think sqlite notification hooks work for different processes.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Traditionally rpm-related daemons have been watching for changes in
/var/lib/rpm/Packages file, but hardcoded paths were always ugly and no longer
feasible at all because of multiple supported backends with different file
names and semantics over them.
We recently added rpmdbCookie() API for
Yup. This is certainly in the right direction, but what I meant is using the
same extension for both binary and source packages (the code seems to support
it here already), and for that the NVRS name seems strange.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
The new tags need to be added in tests/rpmgeneral.at. The change trips up a few
more test cases:
https://semaphoreci.com/rpm-ecosystem/rpm/branches/pull-request-1116/builds/3 >
view more > open "Fedora Latest" at very bottom > open "docker run -t rpm" >
scroll to the very end - or run the test
This pull request **fixes 2 alerts** when merging
1ed65c0582db8b5c442f7c2dc6e0aa715d8b4743 into
8cd161b5bb9b639f5b729063272115436caab545 - [view on
LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-9059f8e7e4d579d520bfe5e8dbb0f4ecc8c5a72e)
**fixed alerts:**
* 1 for
Also +1 on the decision. I wonder if it is worth announcing it a bit more
widely (rpm-list) in case some people(tm) are actually using it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
+1 on decision, did not check code though.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1123#issuecomment-601086001___
Looks like `lib/backend/lmdb.c` needs to be removed from `po/POTFILES.in`
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
That is not the kind of upstream we want. Thanks for making that part clear.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #958.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/958#event-3144622765___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This pull request **fixes 2 alerts** when merging
01b6a72d9ef99e9f6860e8dc058c519050aea7fa into
8cd161b5bb9b639f5b729063272115436caab545 - [view on
LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-25db8c012bca46ea80227cdc992e88d47c839e63)
**fixed alerts:**
* 1 for
In the three years that LMDB support has been in the tree, and four
since upstream promised 1.0.0 in a couple of months, there have been
no upstream changes towards eliminating the key size limitations that
we need. And in the meanwhile it has become clearer that LMDB is not
the promised land it
13 matches
Mail list logo
