Bug 1167239
| Summary: | [rfe] use Swdb instead of history db and yumdb | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Honza Silhan <jsilhan> |
| Component: | dnf | Assignee: | Eduard Čuba <ecuba> |
| Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | akozumpl, aliakc, alikins, amessina, dmach, ecuba, ed.greshko, fedora, hvtaifwkbgefbaei, jzeleny, kalevlember, lantw44, laurent.rineau__fedora, Maillist_Cyber1000, maxime.carron, mls, ngompa13, robin.a.meade, robinlee.sysu, tim.lauridsen, todoleza, vondruch |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-05-29 14:30:29 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1079526, 1089810, 1090292, 1192684, 1194222, 1198998, 1227678 | ||
|
Description
Honza Silhan
2014-11-24 09:35:43 UTC
I don't think this is a good idea to add such functionality at this level. You should add an API for storing such information to rpm. rpm itself can then use swdb for storage. This goal was suspended for a while. We can reconsider the layers. *** Bug 1227949 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Pardon my lack of knowledge here. But what is swdb and where to find more information about it ? How's this related to yumdb stored informations ? *** Bug 1276850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 1276921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Could we please see this implemented? The inconsistency between PackageKit based frontends and DNF is maddening! This will not be implemented anytime soon. We should reuse functions of libhif in DNF at first then by the needs implement the swdb. When PK write to dnfdb then it will be fine (bug 1259865). This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component. Now that DNF is going to be using libhif with DNF 2.0, what's the status on unifying the transactional information recording between PK and DNF? update: there are the PRs in progress: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/199 https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/630 *** Bug 1430269 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Fixed as part of dnf-3.0 and libdnf-0.14 in upstream. They will be released soon. |