Hi @herrold - I read your comment a few times and I'm confused...isn't that
what my patch is doing?
BTW, it's easy to try an rpm-ostree based system, see
https://getfedora.org/atomic/ and https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config
for example. One thing I'd note though is that the rpm databas
I don't know if people see init.lua as something to be used or avoided, but I
have played with it on and off over the past few years. When playing with
macros I generally do anything even mildly complicated in lua, and I ended up
with a basic debugging framework and a set of utility functions.
As I understand the model for rpm-ostree, it assumes a Read Only, and
re-located RPMDB
Wouldn't a more general fix than the one seemingly already committed about
inability to calculate TS disk size requirements, be a simply attempt to
connect with the BDB and get a lockfile? this would indicat
Down the line, it's likely that for rpm-ostree based systems we'll
install an interceptor for `/usr/bin/rpm` to redirect at least things
like local package installs. There's a lot of work to do for
that, so in the meantime let's help admins out by giving them a
helpful error message.
You can view,
This PR rolls in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/319
After:
```
# rpm -e atomic
error: This system is managed by rpm-ostree
error: can't create transaction lock on /var/lib/rpm/.rpm.lock (Read-only file
system)
```
This is still a WIP/RFE - the code here isn't pretty obviousl
I was actually testing a change to better handle `rpm -e atomic` on Fedora
Atomic Host, wondering why my patch was crashing, but in fact it was the
recently added sync code in master.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/p
Anyone (including you) could trivially submit a patch to dnf or whatever to
call `sync` after transactions and have that ship to users pretty quickly if
that's what you want. That'd address the original bug report, no?
Why should this be hardcoded in librpm?
--
You are receiving this because
Or stated another way, if you change dnf it'd feel for the vast majority of
people that it defaults to on, and do so pretty quickly. Right?
--
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-man
