This is a tracking bug for Change: NewRpmDBFormat For more details, see: https://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat Change format of the RPM Database from Berkeley DB to RPM's own format.
Can you explain *why* we need to create our *own* format? My first inclination is that we should not be writing our own database format, but instead using a different one that's better maintained. * look for something like RocksDB, or lmdb * maintain Berkeley DB ourselves
On 2016-Feb-23, we have reached Fedora 24 Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (testable). At this point, all accepted changes should be substantially complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by default, it must be so enabled at Change Completion deadline. Change tracking bug should be set to the MODIFIED state to indicate it achieved completeness. Incomplete and non testable Changes will be reported to FESCo on 2016-Feb-26 meeting. Contingency plan for System Wide Changes, if planned for Alpha (or in case of serious doubts regarding Change completion), will be activated.
Further reviews and discussions have turned up more things that still need fixing or being dealt with. As there already was some criticism that this feature is rushed we rather postpone the change of the format for one release and will put the support for the new format in F24 as a tech preview only.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 25 development cycle. Changing version to '25'.
is this Feature likely to make it for F25 ?
Even if it doesn't, how does one access this feature as a "tech preview" that's in F24 and I assume is still there in F25? As far as I can tell, our rpm package is built without the flag necessary to compile in the ndb code.
I am wondering, what is the status of the new ndb format? Clearly not available yet in any Fedora release. Has it been postponed to F26 or to some other release?
Any update on this?
(In reply to Shawn Starr from comment #8) > Any update on this? afaik an think RPM 4.14 will use NDB , whether it'll default to that i dunno . you may wanna read this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.14
This message is a reminder that Fedora 25 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 25. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '25'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 25 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Seems like the ability to use lmdb as a backend has been added to rpm upstream: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/291 Is the new custom format still planned for a future change or will lmdb (or some other backend) be used instead?
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 28 development cycle. Changing version to '28'.
Well, the lmdb backend was added under the assumption that lbdb would resolve the size limitation for keys. Unfortunately this has not happened and is probably not going to happen. We are currently evaluating alternatives.
To state the obvious, again: sqlite
This message is a reminder that Fedora 28 is nearing its end of life. On 2019-May-28 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 28. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '28'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 28 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to '31'.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to 31.
We have reached the 'Code Complete (testable)' milestone in the Fedora 31 release cycle. If your Change is in a testable state, please set the status to MODIFIED. If this Change will not be ready for Fedora 31, please set the version to rawhide. The 100% code complete deadline is Tue 2019-08-27.
Is this still bound to an active change? I thought it was pretty much completely abandoned. It certainly would be nice if RPM didn't use libdb but....
Closing this tracking issue based on comment 14. I will reopen if this change is revived.