On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:27:29 +1200 Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01 Jul 2003 15:51:18 -0700 > James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 14:57, Pierre Fortin wrote: > > > On 01 Jul 2003 14:45:24 -0700 James Sparenberg > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 13:37, Pierre Fortin wrote: > > > > > On 01 Jul 2003 12:52:33 -0700 James Sparenberg > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It works as expected.. the parent automatically dies and the > > > > > > child continues it's run... Problem is when I put a similar > > > > > > case into an RPM and it runs it. It hangs. RPM will not > > > > > > continue until child runs it's course. And all the time that > > > > > > rpm #1 is open I can't start installing rpm #2 (the rpm > > > > > > database does not multi-task.) grrrr. Although rpm uses bash > > > > > > shell scripts it sure doesn't use them correctly. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't follow all the threads... From what you say > > > > > here, I think what you are up against is DB locking... and that > > > > > won't be solved with multiple threads unless the DB allows it, > > > > > which I doubt. Kinda sounds like the rpm DB is Linux' "registry" > > > > > in this respect... > > > > > > > > correct and if I can figure out how to make rpm start the auto > > > > install script ... then release it to continue on it's merry way I > > > > can cut installation time for my company by 40% Or at least the > > > > time required to find out if all rpms install correctly. (the rpm > > > > in question takes about 80% of the total install time just waiting > > > > for the script is spawns to run.) Not to disimilar to the > > > > situation where you install a new kernel. It runs a number of > > > > commands (such as install_kernel) that if there was a way to run > > > > them ... then let the rpm command finish while they continue on > > > > their own. The system would be able to begin installing the next > > > > rpm while the install_kernel command etc finished on it's own. > > > > You know the old theory ... you can do anything with software... > > > > we'll, I'm trying to prove just that. *grin* > > > > > > So you're gonna rip rpm apart and have it use separate DBs aligned > > > with the package categories already defined by Mdk... Cool! :^) > > > :^) > > > > > > Not quite.... I'm trying to find a way to make rpm -Uvh spawn off > > processes that allow the first rpm -Uvh to end, freeing up the rpmdb > > to accept a new rpm -Uvh. kinda like > > > > > > _ installation script for rpm1 running. > > / > > / > > rpm -Uvh rpm1.rpm (rpm complets) _ installation script rpm2 > > \ / > > \ / > > - rpm -Uvh rpm2.rpm (rpm completes) > > \ > > \ > > - rpm -Uvh rpm3.rpm > > > > > > instead of the more linear process it is now. I don't want to get > > into rpm itself... but rather figure out how to spawn independent > > processes rather than dependent ones. Right now if in the rpm I put > > > > %postin > > nohup /usr/local/bin/autoinstallscript1 > & > > > > > > > > RPM itself will wait no matter what for that command string to finish. > > > > I don't want it to wait. I want it to do anything else it has to do, > > finish and not care what happens to the above command string. I can > > do this from a command line ... but for reasons beyond my ken when > > bash commands are used in rpm they act differently. > > > > On your point.. yes ... I agree that rpm could more affectively handle > > the database. There is no reason why it should lock the db after it > > figures out if all dependencies are met unless it's actively writing > > to the db. Data can be gathered and written asynchronously as easily > > as it could be done synchronously so why not... but that's another > > battle for another day. > > > > James > > > > Wouldn't you run into trouble with databases. There is a built in > interlock which only allows one instance to have rw access to a record > at a time. Others may have read but not read-write access. > > I'll explain it further with a joint bank account. > Balance = $155.00 > > Scenario 1 > 12:55.02 - He accesses the account with his Eftpos card to pay for a > bussiness lunch of $130.00 - Eftpos grabs the balance of $155.00 and > prepares the transaction. 12:55.04 - She is at the 'ladies club' and > also tries to pay for lunch at $125.00 - Eftpos grabs the balance of > $155.00 and prepares teh transaction. 12:55.06 - His transaction > completes and the balance is ammended. Now there is $25.00 in the > account. 12:55.08 - Her transaction completes and the balance is > ammended. $155.00 - $125.00 = $25.00 gets written back to the account as > the balance overwriting the previous transaction and the bank is out of > pocket. He gets a free lunch. > > Scenario 2 > 12:55.02 - He accesses the account with his Eftpos card to pay for a > bussiness lunch - a lock is placed until transaction completes. 12:55.04 > - She is at the 'ladies club' and also tries to pay for lunch. Read > access only so the Eftpos says, try again. 12:55.06 - His transaction > completes and the balance is ammended. Now there is $25.00 in the > account. 12:55.11 - She tries again and finds there is only $25.00 in > the cheque account so has to use the savings account. Heh heh heh. I almost went to the USA, several years ago. Unfortunately scenario 2 put paid to that idea. And the savings account was not in a position to help out at that time. If anyone manages to work out how to get around this locked db problem then I want to be the first to know! You guys crack me up! Janet Blankfield "The ideal love affair is one conducted by post." JBS ----------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... life's a beach ... -----------------------------
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
