On Jun 21, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Denis Washington wrote:
The LSB specification says RPMTAG_BASENAMES and friends should be
used,
so the choice is pretty clear.
Good. It took bloody years to get that "choice" into the "LSB
Packaging Standard".
The transaction set (and the underlying configuration/rpmdb
handling)
cannot be scoped within the individual methods if you are going
to compute and add RPMTAG_SIZE lazily in _close_package().
I don't know what you mean here. I use a separate transaction set
for
_register_package() and _close_package(), closing after each
function.
What I mean is that the _register_package() method constructs
what you are calling a Header, and calls rpmdbAdd().
Then the _close_package() method comes along later, reopen's
an rpmdb, adds RPMTAG_SIZE, and rewrites the header.
There's a racy window between your 2 method calls that will lead
to very hard to diagnose issues. Adding RPMTAG_SIZE in
the _register_package() method turns _close_package() into
a no-operation needed stub, and otherwise avoids statefulness.
True. But the problem is that the complete header cannot be created in
_register_package() as the package files are still missing. And
doing it
in _close_package() kills the guarantee that a successful run of
_register_package() means a successful package registration - we only
know if we were successful after rpmdbAdd().
So keep the header around until "complete", then do rpmdbAdd(),
which will need a transaction and more.
The raciness I've pointed out has everything to do with database <->
daemon
interactions, nothing at all to do with rpmdb specifically.
P.S.: For follow-ups of general interest, I recommend you to reply
on [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can subscribe here:
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
I will not reply on the packaging list, having received hostile
threats there
in the past.
Unfortunate. I hope you'll at least follow the discussion over there.
I follow, yes. Nothing that I haven't heard for years and years sadly.
The window where LSB Packaging might have made a difference
for Linux closed years ago, the "Berlin API" proposal was already too
little and too late. JMHO ...
My current interest in your code is disaster prevention, not otherwise.
73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
LSB Communication List rpm-lsb@rpm5.org
