On 3/26/20 6:12 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:41:56AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:54, Tomasz Torcz tomek@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:08:57PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
No, rpm doesn't use many Linux-specific calls and this is no exception. In fact it doesn't use any of the *at() family calls directly either.
But why?! It's not like rpm is massive on Windows Server... Isn't good support for Linux absolutely the most important thing?
Well, RPM is a package manager on AIX. IBM/Redhat may want to keep AIX alive ;-)
My understanding is that is not the only place it is used. A Linux only version would end being another fork.. I doubt it matters much as it did 10 or 20 years ago.. but it would still be a splitting of community resources versus a growing of community resources. Not all the world can be as free as systemd :).
Well, OK, but let's consider that Linux installations are probably something like 99.9%. IMO it's totally appropriate to implement an atomic path for linux, and implement a non-atomic fallback for the systems that need that. We're not talking about anything big here, rather a ~10 line function.
Patches welcome - well tested ones that is. That's one of the issues with such alternate paths: that simple thing suddenly has two separate paths you need to test instead of one.
Truly atomic database rebuild would be nice of course, but all this attention on that is way out of proportion.
- Panu -