[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: install rpm within an rpm...continued



On 5/19/06, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha <strange nsk no-ip org> wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 04:20:43PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> You are misguided.

OK. I thought the lock was internal to the database backend. Sorry for
the noise.


Nope. The fcntl lock insures that only one install transaction runs, database
resource locking is different and handled by Berkeley DB locks.

> Spawning a child with a "sleep N" is way way hackier than removing
> the lock.

Why? Waiting for the current rpm to finish before starting another is
what a user does.


The difference between what a "user does" and how long an asynchronous
scriptlet waits before attempting to install should be obvious.

There is no way to choose the N in "sleep N" accurately, any chosen
value will fail to
wait long enough for a sufficiently large transaction to finish.
That's what is hacky.
Having one process fork off another, rather unrelated, process is
rather surprising and unusual as well.

Meanwhile a user can see that the previous transaction has not
completed before starting another operation.

73 de Jeff


_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]