Bug 1167239 - [rfe] use Swdb instead of history db and yumdb
Summary: [rfe] use Swdb instead of history db and yumdb
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Eduard Čuba
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1227949 1276850 1276921 1430269 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 1079526 1089810 1090292 1192684 1194222 1198998 1227678
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-24 09:35 UTC by Honza Silhan
Modified: 2018-05-29 14:30 UTC (History)
22 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-05-29 14:30:29 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1409362 0 medium CLOSED [abrt] dnf: history.py:815:_commit:sqlite3.OperationalError: database is locked 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1409362

Description Honza Silhan 2014-11-24 09:35:43 UTC 
Connect Swdb with DNF and document exposed API.

* Swdb is redesigned and merged history db and yumdb. It's a standalone library with C/C++/Python API that will be used by Dnf/PackageKit/yum to maintain log of transaction and additional package info (from which repo was package installed, reason, group info, etc.).
Comment 1 Michael Schröder 2015-03-09 15:58:54 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.
Comment 2 Honza Silhan 2015-03-17 09:16:39 UTC 
This goal was suspended for a while. We can reconsider the layers.
Comment 3 Honza Silhan 2015-07-24 11:25:17 UTC 
*** Bug 1227949 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Ali Akcaagac 2015-08-24 09:47:43 UTC 
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 ?
Comment 5 Honza Silhan 2015-11-02 15:39:13 UTC 
*** Bug 1276850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Honza Silhan 2015-11-02 15:50:13 UTC 
*** Bug 1276921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2016-01-16 16:58:20 UTC 
Could we please see this implemented? The inconsistency between PackageKit based frontends and DNF is maddening!
Comment 8 Honza Silhan 2016-01-18 12:23:12 UTC 
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).
Comment 9 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2016-07-08 09:26:20 UTC 
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Comment 10 Neal Gompa 2016-07-14 12:09:28 UTC 
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?
Comment 11 Honza Silhan 2017-01-02 21:56:32 UTC 
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
Comment 12 Honza Silhan 2017-03-13 15:39:14 UTC 
*** Bug 1430269 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Daniel Mach 2018-05-29 14:30:29 UTC 
Fixed as part of dnf-3.0 and libdnf-0.14 in upstream.
They will be released soon.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.