Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:12:27 -0800
From:      Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu>
To:        Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: pkgdb failures
Message-ID:  <C00D9394-8EB7-4F35-9F1E-DCC18A066143@u.washington.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1196393699.474f84e3e7d1b@webmail.rawbw.com>
References:  <1196388002.474f6ea2bcf32@webmail.rawbw.com> <1196388666.474f713a7d756@webmail.rawbw.com> <474F8191.5080807@u.washington.edu> <1196393699.474f84e3e7d1b@webmail.rawbw.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 29, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Yuri wrote:

> Quoting Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu>:
>
>>     Yes, it's partly caused by pkgdb and/or how Ruby / pkgdb  
>> handles the
>> DB I think...
>>     1. What type of BDB structure do you use [most likely btree(1) --
>> says this during the pkgdb rebuild..]?
> bdb_btree
>>     2. What version of BDB are you using (1.85, 2.x or 4.x) [(cd
>> /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/portinstall && make config) will give you  
>> that info]?
> 4.x
>>     3. uname -a says?
> BSD xxx.xxx.xxx 7.0-BETA3 FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 #1: Tue Nov 27 13:11:12  
> PST 2007
>  yuri@xxx.xxx.xxx:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  i386
>
> Yuri


	I'd try using BDB 1.85 as it appeared to be a bit more stable than  
4.x (at least that's what I remember from using it..).
	You'll have to delete the .db files and fix things via portsdb and  
pkgdb (IIRC), but after that it's essentially the same song and dance..
	Interrupting pkgdb while it's doing its thing will corrupt the .db  
files though as BDB isn't an atomic database API..
Cheers,
-Garrett



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C00D9394-8EB7-4F35-9F1E-DCC18A066143>