fedora-list Digest, Vol 36, Issue 81

[Kevin H. Hobbs]

On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:00 -0500, fedora-list-request at redhat.com wrote:
> issues of rpm database corruption and yum-updatesd service running are
> separate except for yum-updatesd expects you to have a working rpm
> database and failing that, I can see where yum-updatesd is not gonna
> be
> happy (though it still shouldn't leak memory).

I suspect that the leaking in yum-updatesd was the cause of the
corruption on my system. I know that the rpmdb corruption showed up
after the first time that I had to kill yum-updatesd. I realized that
there were updates that were not being applied, trued to run yum, I was
told that another yum was running, I waited a day, I killed yum-updatesd
which was already using RAM out of control, and then my RPM database was
broken.

I've since repaired the database. I hope that means it's really
repaired. At least yum itself uses the database just fine. 
> 
> Indeed with FC-6 we have had rpm db corruption at the levels unseen
> since RHL 8.0
> 

I see many people making this complaint on the list.

> I would expect that an updated yum-updatesd on a system with a
> functioning rpm database should work as expected.
> 

I'd expect the same thing, do you have any suggestions for evidence that
I should collect to demonstrate that this isn't the case? I've obviously
convinced myself, but I'll give it another try, and collect a bit more
data.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070208/3dc44914/attachment-0001.sig>