RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: About the consistency of /var/lib/rpm/__db.00?

From: Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
Date: Tue 25 May 2010 - 20:02:53 CEST
Message-id: <9BAECB93-B0D9-438A-ADBA-4BCA6F20FA89@mac.com>

On May 25, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:

> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:23:08AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>>> Yes. The __db* files are how interprocess locks are shared
>>> in Berkeley DB. Its known as a DBENV.
>> 
>> and those were not needed in rpm 4.0.x and it worked fine without them.
>> Do newer rpms call bdb differently or did it just upgrade bdb to a version
>> that requires __db*?
> 
> Looking at the problem further, I was just told that it would be much
> better if I could make the 2MB of IO that creating those __db files takes,
> "not happen".
> 

Well, there's _LOTS_ of "not happening I/O" in rpm-5.3 but that's
not the version of RPM that you have chosen to use.

> I don't know much about BDB or how creating those __db files apparently
> became compulsory between rpm 4.0.x and rpm 4.1.x, but it looks if I drop
> privs to nobody in rpmq, it'll at least stop creating them.
> Not a full solution, but a good start.
> 

Bzzzzt! rpm-4.0.x went end-of-life in a far and distant galaxy a long time ago ...

>> If you have any idea if BDB can be made to stop since it was doing without
>> them before and that usage worked for us, and has for years, that'd be
>> great.
> 
> I'll look into the lib specs and calls in case there is somehow an 'off'
> button somewhere, even if it's apparently not likely.
> 

There are an immense number of "off" buttons in RPM, none
of them very useful or correct, but I can/will tell you
what to do.

But I don't have a time machine, nor am I in any position (or have any
interest) in revisiting blissful times of yore when RPM did
not have or use __db* files.

73 de Jeff
Received on Tue May 25 20:03:19 2010
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.