On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 08:46:08, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 26.03.2013 09:48, schrieb Junichi Uekawa: > > not enough information in the bug, 702811 seems to be a better bug. > > Say what? Have you read the full bug report, including the analysis that > it is because of /run/shm vs /dev/shm?
Related to this, a patch was incorporated from the following email to handle another bug. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700591#5 Based on the idea that it's somehow this patch that's causing this new problem, I'm "pulling at straws" to try to help figure out why. You mentioned you have /run/shm but not /dev/shm. Based on that I'm looking at the following logic from the patch: + if [ "$DEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS" = "linux" ] && [ "$USEDEVSHM" = "yes" ]; then + SHM_PATH="run/shm" + [ ! -d "/$SHM_PATH" ] && SHM_PATH="dev/shm" This looks to me like it's checking if /run/shm exists (and is a directory), and if it doesn't then blindly uses /dev/shm instead. This seems reasonable but I'm wondering if there's some way for this test to fail. If /run/shm were a /device/ rather than a directory or a softlink to a directory, that would be one way for that to happen. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org