xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0

To: "'Axel Thimm'" <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Eric Sandeen'" <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0
From: "Kai Leibrandt" <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:43:06 +0200
Cc: "'Simon Matter'" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <20030826161953.GB6163@pua.nirvana>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Axel Thimm [mailto:Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 26 August 2003 18:20
> To: Eric Sandeen
> Cc: Simon Matter; Kai Leibrandt; linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:44:04AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > FWIW, the other solution seems to be to get the latest RPMs from 
> > rpm.org
> > (4.2.x) which turn off O_DIRECT in the rpm source.
> 
> So using rpm-4.2, 4.1.1 or 4.0.5 should be fine (see:
> http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/Red-Hat-Linux/87/0/10430019/)
> 
> > I still don't know what the underlying problem actually is.
> 
<SNIP>
> If rpm >= 4.2 does the job, I'd rather put a Requires: line 
> in the kernel specfile than crippling XFS. After all I have 
> backported rpm 4.2 for RH8.0 and RH7.3, so it is available 
> from the same source.

I agree totally, although some people may get thworn off by a kernel
spec having a Requires: in it.

> I'll do some more testing with rpm 4.2. Kai, could you also 
> try it out?

Yes I will but I won't be able to get back to you with results until the
weekend... But the referenced message looks very encouraging.

K.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>