On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:00 -0500, fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > issues of rpm database corruption and yum-updatesd service running are > separate except for yum-updatesd expects you to have a working rpm > database and failing that, I can see where yum-updatesd is not gonna > be > happy (though it still shouldn't leak memory). I suspect that the leaking in yum-updatesd was the cause of the corruption on my system. I know that the rpmdb corruption showed up after the first time that I had to kill yum-updatesd. I realized that there were updates that were not being applied, trued to run yum, I was told that another yum was running, I waited a day, I killed yum-updatesd which was already using RAM out of control, and then my RPM database was broken. I've since repaired the database. I hope that means it's really repaired. At least yum itself uses the database just fine. > > Indeed with FC-6 we have had rpm db corruption at the levels unseen > since RHL 8.0 > I see many people making this complaint on the list. > I would expect that an updated yum-updatesd on a system with a > functioning rpm database should work as expected. > I'd expect the same thing, do you have any suggestions for evidence that I should collect to demonstrate that this isn't the case? I've obviously convinced myself, but I'll give it another try, and collect a bit more data.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
