The last patch to RPM_CHECK_LIB is appropriate for "opt-out" builds (i.e.
--without-lmdb).
Leave "no" if willing to explicitly "opt-in" by passing --with-lmdb to
configure.
For a serious test in CI, arrange for the macro %_db_backend lmdb to be set by
default. Almost certainly you will also fi
Is it intended, that it's called `/data.mdb` rather `/Packages.mdb`?
--
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/291#issuecomment-318894429__
BDB and LMDB have always had the ability to have mutable databases (actually
tables) in a single file. So actually there is a "Packages"
(sub-)database/table in data.mdb.
Since 2 of 3 backend now have sub-databases in a single file, its likely time
to do the same with BDB. I've never bothered t
Here are lib/rpmdb.c and lib/backend/dbi.c replacements.
IIRC, rpmdb.c should now be unchanged. dbi.c needed some more anal retentive
sanity checks.
[rpmdb.c.gz](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/files/1185904/rpmdb.c.gz)
[dbi.c.gz](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/fi
@n3npq why don't you send Pull Requests on your own. finding this attachments
and converting them to real commits is painful and doesn't lead anywhere...
--
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
See also comments at issue #281 about removing MDB_FIXEDMAP. Just delete the
line that looks like
`eflags |= MDB_FIXEDMAP`
--
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/2
At some point, "chmod 0666 lock.mdb" needs to be automated. ATM its unclear
where that chmod should be planted likely in rpmdb.c, but perhaps as silent
hack in lib/backend/lmdb.c). Dunno yet ...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit.
c2cad9d Remove MDB_FIXEDMAP flag to prevent portability issues
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/291/files/2864bc4a3cb8905abbed1e833e50e03a6aded5d3..c2cad9da9e
@n3npq @hyc @ignatenkobrain This should be fully rebased now.
--
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/291#issuecomment-318926969_
@ignatenkobrain : I don't send PR's because I don't have the
time/energy/resources to wait months for review, updating the PR with zero
feedback other than "Why don't you send PR's?". That's why.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly o
@Conan-Kudo : if using RPM_CHECK_LIB w internal, its a bit trickier than just
adding a checkout.
So you likely want to remove "internal" as the 1st thing to try in
"[yes,internal:external:none]"
FYI, removing "none" as in (yes,external) will fail to configure if not found
(i.e. mandatory)
And
Please remove the part that patches ndb/glue.c from this commit.
--
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/291#issuecomment-319020600__
@mlschroe Fixed.
--
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/291#issuecomment-319041353___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@l
@n3npq : well this is a pleasant surprise. Thank you!
@Conan-Kudo : testing for Packages.mdb existence doesn't make LMDB create it.
AFAICS the "data.mdb" name is hardwired in LMDB unless MDB_NOSUBDIR is used,
and using that would introduce other unnecessary complications. I can fix that
when co
Closed #291.
--
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/291#event-1209933863___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Merged manually as of commit ed9de1992f5e1c23e8d8dbd61325a1e0070f2c72
Again, thank you @n3npq for the backend and @Conan-Kudo for the final tweaks!
--
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-softw
@pmatilai Thank you for reviewing it!
--
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/291#issuecomment-323041501___
Rpm-maint mai
Code duplication (and refactoring) are the least of the problems with the
current RPM backend.
There is no concept of a "transaction" or "durability" in the current RPM
backend.
And the existing INIT_CDB Berkeley DB model implemented has been tortured
beyond belief or reason.
Anything that LM
FWIW, "data.mdb" can be renamed to "Packages.mdb" in LMDB
by adding a flag and passing the file path, not the directory path, when
opening.
Not worth the effort (and adds confusion: "Packages" is the name of a
database/table within "data.mdb" not the name of the file).
Note that Berkeley DB al
19 matches
Mail list logo
