On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:57:40AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > The question was not "why it isn't done YET", but why they are not > > removing at all, thinking it is a bug. And Yes, if You treat bug as > > "missing feature", then there are less chances that "it happen faster" > > to fix it. > > I don't understand what you're trying to say.
I am trying to say I don't reproach You for "missing feature", for "it isn't done YET". But I am wondering, why if and when fsck ALREADY have found reference to non-existent chunk, why it does not remove it? What makes sense to leave it in place? It would be "missing feature" to FIND AND REMOVE such references. But if You ALREADY have found it, what prevents You to remove it at this point, at this moment? > If a file is missing a chunk, then it's data cannot be restored > correctly, and the checksum of the restored data does not match the > original file. That's what it means, and yes, it's related to the > missing chunk. If I understand right, this means that when You find the reference that points to missing chunk, You should remove both the reference as well as the file containing this missing chunk, this reference points to, do You? ### Vladimir Stavrinov ### -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
