xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0

To: "Axel Thimm" <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0
From: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:10:46 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, "Kai Leibrandt" <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <20030827161257.GD2864@pua.nirvana>
References: <20030826142327.GB3818@pua.nirvana> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308260955410.8882-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com> <20030826153708.GG3818@pua.nirvana> <1061913418.13459.13.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308241122220.16149-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com> <3F4B73F3.1A08113B@ch.sauter-bc.com> <1061912643.13459.1.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> <20030826161953.GB6163@pua.nirvana> <1061932714.13459.71.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> <35984.213.173.165.140.1061961866.squirrel@imap01.ch.sauter-bc.com> <20030827161257.GD2864@pua.nirvana>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.1
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 07:24:26AM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
>> > Argh, here's one thing that went wrong... my cscope database did not
>> > index fs/ext3/file.c, for some reason... so I did not modify it, and
>> > O_DIRECT was not getting turned off for ext3 - hence the problem on
>> ext3
>> > roots.
>>
>> My question remains, how does the problem discussed here show up. I have
>> installed 20.9.XFS1.3.0 on RedHat 9 with my nonnptl db4 package and
>> couldn't find any problem using rpm.
>
> I think (haven't rebuild rpm for some time), that db4 is not linked
> against, but has been embedded into rpm's sources. Try ldd on
> /bin/rpm, you'll find it depending on librpmdb-4.2.so, and not
> libdb-4.*.so
>
> It was said that latest rpm bits (4.2, 4.1.1 and 4.0.5) had O_DIRECT
> disabled in their db4 code. But someone reported this failure on an
> rpm 4.2 system, so I am puzzled again ... :(
>
> I guess I need to rebuild rpm for RH9/8.0/7.3, maybe go straight to
> 4.2.1.

Well, RH 7.2 is also widely used here and there is quite a big difference
between 7.2 ... 9. On 7.2, rpm is statically linked.
And then, if an application like rpm breaks with a certain
kernel/filesystem, I expect it not to be the only application that breaks.
Am I paranoid?

Simon


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