* Howard Chu:
> 5) BerkeleyDB lives under a licensing cloud. Since 2008 Oracle
> lawyers were contacting commercial OpenLDAP users and demanding
> license fees from them, even though BerkeleyDB is expressly licensed
> for free use in open source software (such as OpenLDAP).
At least the new licen
Chris Adams cmadams.net> writes:
>
> Once upon a time, Neal Gompa gmail.com> said:
> > My understanding of the problem is that it's less about the "doubts
> > about its future" and more about the fact Oracle inexplicably changed
> > the license with BDB 6.x to AGPLv3. Berkley DB 5.3 is old, and
Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said:
> My understanding of the problem is that it's less about the "doubts
> about its future" and more about the fact Oracle inexplicably changed
> the license with BDB 6.x to AGPLv3. Berkley DB 5.3 is old, and no one
> has forked it and maintained it.
To me, it see
On 02/01/2016 02:55 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> For the wider audience, some more information about LMDB backend for RPM can
> be found in:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086784
>
> In short:
> - Maximum database size is just "sanity limit" set by application. It can be
> hunderds of
On 1.2.2016 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 04:17 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2016 10:03 pm, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
>>> original submission). It is here:
>>>
>>> http://rpm.org/gitw
On 1. 2. 2016 at 12:14:18, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:51:47PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On 1. 2. 2016 at 09:59:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:51:47PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 1. 2. 2016 at 09:59:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned
On 1. 2. 2016 at 09:59:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> > >
> > > original submission). It is here:
> >
On 01/31/2016 04:17 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2016 10:03 pm, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
>> original submission). It is here:
>>
>> http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
>>
>> Since
On 02/01/2016 11:43 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 02/01/2016 11:26 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 11:26 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> Even if the RPM database is only accessed via lib
On 02/01/2016 11:26 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
>>> important that the most central database present on ev
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:26:34AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
> > > important that the most centr
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
> > important that the most central database present on every Fedora
> > system is reliable, well-tested and fl
On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
> important that the most central database present on every Fedora
> system is reliable, well-tested and flexible. Sqlite is a highly
> regarded piece of software, which runs on bi
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> > original submission). It is here:
> >
> > http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
> >
On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> original submission). It is here:
>
> http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
>
> Since this change has (rashly) been approved by FESCO, I guess we're
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jonathan Underwood said:
>> I wonder if the MDB (or LMDB) database from the openldap team was evaluated
>> as a possible BDB replacement?
>
> There's also TDB from Samba.
>
> I certainly don't know RPM's requirements, but it
Once upon a time, Jonathan Underwood said:
> I wonder if the MDB (or LMDB) database from the openldap team was evaluated
> as a possible BDB replacement?
There's also TDB from Samba.
I certainly don't know RPM's requirements, but it seems shortsighted
from a long-term maintenance point of view t
On 29 Jan 2016 10:03 pm, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
>
> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> original submission). It is here:
>
> http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
>
> Since this change has (rashly) been approved by FESCO, I guess we'
FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
original submission). It is here:
http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
Since this change has (rashly) been approved by FESCO, I guess we're
going to be copying this code into some libguestfs tools, and we
On 01/29/2016 11:18 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
On 01/29/2016 05:02 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm still unclear why you don't just use sqlite 3.
Among other things it is about 2 times lower than the current BDB
implementation.
As a third party in all this, I'd rather talent be applied to speed
On 01/29/2016 05:15 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 03:46:27 PM Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT
On 01/29/2016 05:02 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:53:08PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
>> On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34
>>> be able to read Fedora 24 RPM databases?
>>
>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 05:02 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I'm still unclear why you don't just use sqlite 3.
>
> Among other things it is about 2 times lower than the current BDB
> implementation.
There's some question [see adjacent mes
On Monday, January 11, 2016 03:46:27 PM Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
>
>
> Change format of the RPM Database from
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:07:57PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Another thing to think about is endianness and word size, since with
> BDB we can examine, say, an i686 guest from an ppc64 host (and people
> even do this).
Also what about this part of my question?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, V
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:53:08PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34
> > be able to read Fedora 24 RPM databases?
>
> Fedora 25 will. Fedora 34 will probably not. If it
On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34
> be able to read Fedora 24 RPM databases?
Fedora 25 will. Fedora 34 will probably not. If it turns out that
reading 10 releases old database is really, really important
On 01/13/2016 04:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
>>> just because rpm which works for many years fine
On 01/16/2016 02:33 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> Well the feature writeup is rather fuzzy on this. It says that in Fedora
>> 24 rpm will be able to read both old and new format, but it also says
>> that future RPM versions will drop support for the old format. So unless
>
On 01/29/2016 04:35 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 01:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> Yup - I'm curious about this as well. Using sqlite [for example]
>> would solve the libguestfs issues I outlined in this thread, as well
>> as using a format which is robust and proven rather than s
On 01/14/2016 01:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Yup - I'm curious about this as well. Using sqlite [for example]
> would solve the libguestfs issues I outlined in this thread, as well
> as using a format which is robust and proven rather than some
> half-baked homebrew thing.
Well, we actuall
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Tomáš Smetana wrote:
>
> I tend to use systemd-nspawn containers for building rpms. So for example,
> I
> have a Fedora 24 system and use its dnf to create e.g. Centos 7 container
> root and then build Centos rpms from within that container. If I
> understand
> t
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Well the feature writeup is rather fuzzy on this. It says that in Fedora
> 24 rpm will be able to read both old and new format, but it also says
> that future RPM versions will drop support for the old format. So unless
> there is a mandatory data format conversion duri
On 2016-01-15 09:42, Dan Horák wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:24:36 +0100
Tomáš Smetana wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:38:08 +0100
Florian Festi wrote:
On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:42:17 +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:24:36 +0100 Tomáš Smetana wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:38:08 +0100 Florian Festi wrote:
> > I tend to use systemd-nspawn containers for building rpms. So for
> > example, I have a Fedora 24 system and use its dnf t
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:24:36 +0100
Tomáš Smetana wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:38:08 +0100
> Florian Festi wrote:
>
> > On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> > >> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
> > >> w
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:38:08 +0100
Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> >> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
> >> wrote:
> >>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install fr
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 07:50:05AM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 13.1.2016 13:48, Florian Festi wrote:
> > On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
> >> Jan Kurik wrote:
> >>
> >>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> >>> h
On 13.1.2016 13:48, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
>> Jan Kurik wrote:
>>
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>>
>>> Change owner(s
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
> > just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format
>
> I don't think anyon
On 01/11/2016 05:08 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> It'd be interesting to know the technical details, worth rep
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:01:23PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/New
On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
>> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
>>> just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's
Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format
I don't think anyone said there was a need t
On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
> just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format
I don't think anyone said there was a need to reinstall from scratch.
Richard
--
devel maili
Am 13.01.2016 um 14:01 schrieb Florian Festi:
On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
Details of th
On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> Details of the format?
>
> What forward and backward
On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
> Jan Kurik wrote:
>
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com
On 01/11/2016 05:26 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
>>
>>
>> Cha
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
>
>
> Change format of the RPM Database from Berkeley
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
Details of the format?
What forward and backward compatibility guarantees are there?
libguestfs reads the rpmd
Am 11.01.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.01.2016 um 17:26 schrieb Kalev Lember:
On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chan
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 11.01.2016 um 17:26 schrieb Kalev Lember:
>>
>> On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>>>
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>>
>>> Ch
Am 11.01.2016 um 17:26 schrieb Kalev Lember:
On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
Change owner(s):
* Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
Change format of the
On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
Change owner(s):
* Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
Change format of the RPM Database from Berkeley DB to RPM's own form
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
It'd be interesting to know the technical details, worth reposting once there's
a design document or prototype PR.
I
On 11 January 2016 at 14:46, Jan Kurik wrote:
> - Tools using librpm should not be affected
Is there any early-access to the new database e.g. some test rpms?
Quite a few of the PackageKit transactions have specific time requests
and I'd like to profile any new database for speed before the new
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
>
>
> Change format of the RPM Database from Be
= Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
Change owner(s):
* Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
Change format of the RPM Database from Berkeley DB to RPM's own format.
== Detailed Description ==
The current
61 matches
Mail list logo
