Re: Backward and forward compatibility

[James Olin Oden <joden malachi lee k12 nc us>]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> >Well, O_DIRECT is being ripped out by force in the specfiles (BTW when
> >you decided to rip it out, you forgot to change the release tag, so
> >there are some versions of rpm-4.2-1 floating around with enabled
> >O_DIRECT support). BTW2 there is some discussion on the xfs lists on
> >the background of db4/O_DIRECT/sparse files bug. If you like I can add
> >you to the discussion.
> >  
> >
> 
> Um, I'm less than happy about O_DIRECT: stupid interface, arcane problem.
> The killer is/was that O_DIRECT was unleashed in the kernel with hardly 
> any warning,
> certainly not enough to do something rational in distributing rpm.
> 
> Sure there are are versions around. I have the (ahem) joy of developing 
> without
> a release plan or schedule, with whatever I just built released through 
> Raw Hide
> and betas.
> 
> Ready or not, here's rpm!
>
So is O_DIRECT something you have to use, or is it something that is good
to use if you can for rpm?  I just googled for this, because I was not 
sure what it was all about, and in effect it causes a file opened with 
this flag to avoid the kernels cache and go directly to the disk?  So, 
I guess I am wondering, at a high level, why does rpm use this (i.e. I
am looking for clue)?

Cheers...james