Unneeded assertions (supposed to have been: RPM upgrade discussion)
Charles R. Anderson
cra at WPI.EDU
Fri Jan 2 20:34:42 UTC 2004
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 08:44:45PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > o Jeff Johnson is quoted by you to recommend to not to use rpm
> > --rebuilddb. Jeff almost got a stroke, when I asked him about that.
>
> Deja vu? I've seen him recommending, that --rebuilddb is not necessary
> [anymore].
I asked jbj about this on #rpm just today. I hope he doesn't mind me
quoting him:
Jan 02 11:14:42 <cra_> jbj there is some confusion on fedora-legacy
list regard ing recovering after a hung rpm. is it really necessary
or not to do a rpm --rebuilddb after deleting the lock files?
Jan 02 11:16:25 <cra_> http://www.fedora.us/wiki/LegacyRPMUpgrade
Jan 02 11:29:14 <jbj> cra_: --rebuilddb hardly ever necessary, rm -f
/var/lib/rpm/__db* for exceptional events like kill -9 or segfault.
Jan 02 11:29:46 <jbj> otoh, --rebuilddb won't hurt
Jan 02 11:31:16 <jbj> cd /var/lib/rpm && /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdb_stat -CA
will display slocks. perhaps that is most useeful in demystifying.
Jan 02 11:31:29 <jbj> s/slocks/locks/
> FWIW, whenever I recommend "rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db.* ; rpm -vv --rebuilddb"
> myself, it is because experience has it that sometimes this has helped
> further than removal of the tmp files. You never know what the user
> has done to make RPM "hang".
I agree. While not necessary for the exact known causes of most hangs
in rpm where it is necessary for kill -9, I'd recommend it to new
users since it may help fix other problems, and in general it is
always safe to do. I have seen cases where "rpm -qa" hangs halfway
through, and this can only be fixed by --rebuilddb. If in doubt, save
/var/lib/rpm to a backup directory first.
Even an experienced admin appreciates not having to perform these
recovery methods as part of a normal process of using rpm, which is
why I have upgraded all my systems to the latest jbj-recommended
releases from rpm.org.
> Legacy, in particular input for discussion. Warren is somewhat
> over-ambitious IMO, because he's the "let's do it -- push it forward --
> get it going" type of guy who doesn't seem to mind doing most of the
> preparations himself and making lots of proposals for policies. Without
> such a work-force, fedora.us would not have become reality. That makes a
Once again I agree. Some people were complaining that there was
nothing in place for EOL distros, while doing nothing about it.
Warren stepped up and has done a lot to make this a reality. Thank
you Warren.
More information about the fedora-legacy-list
mailing list