Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add database change notification API (#1124)
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 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/1124#issuecomment-601154857___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add database change notification API (#1124)
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: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1124#issuecomment-601139635___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add database change notification API (#1124)
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 checking if the database has changed, and rpmdbStat() and rpmdbFStat() go to the same direction as well, but none of these serve the daemon case particularly well as it should not be necessary to poll. I know sqlite supports notification hooks, and IIRC BDB does too. I think ndb doesn't keep track of who has the db open and no idea how easy/hard implementing that would be. @mlschroe, thoughts ? -- 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/1124___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make "rpmspec -q --srpm foo.spec" say .src, not .%{arch} (#1116)
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 this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1116#issuecomment-601099118___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make "rpmspec -q --srpm foo.spec" say .src, not .%{arch} (#1116)
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 suite locally with `make check` (Sorry for the inconvenience!) -- 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/1116#issuecomment-601092054___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
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 Declaration hides parameter * 1 for Comparison result is always the same -- 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-601091588___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
POTFILES.in fixed. And yeah it deserves a clear mention in release notes and other announcements. -- 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-601088803___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
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: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1123#issuecomment-601086594___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
+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___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
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: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1123#issuecomment-601085613___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer MDBX as an alternative engine to LMDB for rpmdb (#958)
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: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/958#issuecomment-601061509___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer MDBX as an alternative engine to LMDB for rpmdb (#958)
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 Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
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 Declaration hides parameter * 1 for Comparison result is always the same -- 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-601058306___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop the experimental LMDB backend (#1123)
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 seemed on the outset, instead it has issues like requiring the database size to be pre-determined (#902). Drop support for LMDB, there's active development going on in the area of database backends and we cannot afford to drag along an experimental backend that is blocked on upstream design limitations and shows no signs of moving forward. We can always bring it back if the upstream situation changes. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1123 -- Commit Summary -- * Drop the experimental LMDB backend -- File Changes -- M configure.ac (24) M lib/Makefile.am (8) M lib/backend/dbi.c (3) M lib/backend/dbi.h (5) D lib/backend/lmdb.c (945) M macros.in (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1123.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1123.diff -- 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 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
