Checking dependencies in packages selected for installation

[Sam Varshavchik]

Gene Heskett writes:

> On Saturday 20 January 2007 12:57, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> [...]
>>After some Googling, it looks like I'll need to nuke /var/lib/__db* and
>> try the upgrade again.  Well, I'm checking these dependencies again,
>> for the next hour.  Here we go again.
>>
>>Whoever decided to use Berkeley DB for RPM, many years ago, should be
>>smacked upside the head.  Hard.  BDB is garbage.  Stay away from it.
> 
> I have some very nice white ash in 10/4ths sizes.  email me a design for 
> the smacker and it will magicly appear.

Thanks, but I'm too busy today.  Today, the simple FC 4 to FC 6 upgrade 
has so far grown into a 12 hour nightmare, because of this crap.  I just 
finished wiping this server and doing a fresh FC 6 install.  It's rpm 
database was not salvageable.

> Seriously, there has to be a db engine less error prone than BDB.

It's not just BDB.  rpm needs to go.  How many times did something blew up 
in a middle of installing a huge upgrade, leaving you with hundreds of 
packages having both the old and the new versions of each package 
simultaneously installed?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070120/ba9f2826/attachment-0001.sig>