[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20041210011342.M29919@cannabis.dataforce.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:13:42 +0300
From: Galaxy <galaxy@....openwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Rpm updating bug?
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:51:48PM +0200, Ruslan Radvansky wrote:
>
> While I investigate my problem, I found that:
> 1) In changes-current file:
> ==============================================
> rpm 4.2 (with support for db1-format packages database re-introduced
> to allow for upgrades from older versions of Owl).
> ==============================================
> 2) rpm 4.2 reject to install because old db1-format database found.
This is true.
> 3) rpmd from rpm 4.2 distribution reject to upgrade database to new
> format because phases of the Moon.
Hmm. I'm a current maintainer of Owl's rpm. And I've tested it a lot (especially
its ability to upgrade old db1 format to the db3 one). So, it sounds wrong for
me that Owl's rpm 4.2 rejects to upgrade db1.
> My propose to developers: remove from %pre section of rpm.spec file,
> checking for old database format because it supported.
We will remove that support once all our users will migrate to the new version,
because db1 code is unclear and outdated.
> Sorry, downloading of all rpms is to expensive for me and I check1ng
> "teoretically". I not trust that "make installworld" solve my problem.
Yes, it will solve it! There are a lot of magic around Owl's rpm 4.2 in native/Owl/build/installworld.sh. Just look inside and you will find how database upgrade is performed. Threre is no way to perform database upgrade from inside of the rpm package.
> --
> Best regards,
> Ruslan mailto:ruslan@...l.lviv.ua
--
(GM)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
