1) the same debugging info used before to confirm the same code paths,
2) a statement or two about
You could cease
1) guessing that the cause is too large a database
2) claiming "blocker" for what? your life? your distro? OpenMandriva? Whatever ...
3) asserting irrelevancies like "whether there's a bug in in rpm or bdb isn't really that relevant"
You have been told multiple times based on the previous debugging trace
that this is a regression in Berkeley DB that needs to be fixed in Berkeley DB,
not with hack-o-rounds in rpm.
You already have a fix: use bdb 5.2. (Mark Hatle's patch is a workaround, not a fix).
Quoted from the link you have provided:
I have a workaround patch, but it's far from a fix.
And you've made a whole lotta noise about an ancient (and still not properly fixed) bug
for no important reason.
You could provide:
1) the same debugging info used before to confirm the same code paths,
2) a statement or two about
You could cease
1) guessing that the cause is too large a database
2) claiming "blocker" for what? your life? your distro? OpenMandriva? Whatever ...
3) asserting irrelevancies like "whether there's a bug in in rpm or bdb isn't really that relevant"
You have been told multiple times based on the previous debugging trace
that this is a regression in Berkeley DB that needs to be fixed in Berkeley DB,
not with hack-o-rounds in rpm.
You already have a fix: use bdb 5.2. (Mark Hatle's patch is a workaround, not a fix).
Quoted from the link you have provided:
I have a workaround patch, but it's far from a fix.
And you've made a whole lotta noise about an ancient (and still not properly fixed) bug
for no important reason.