On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15/06/10 18:21, Roman Kyrylych wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:17, Dan McGee<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I actually made sure I deleted out all of the DB files before I ran >>> the -Syu this time, thus the reason it grabbed all of them (rm >>> /var/lib/pacman/*.db.tar.gz), so there were definitely no partial DB >>> files. >> >> Don't partial db files have .part suffix too (like packages)? >> In that case the rm command above doesn't delete partial files. >> > > Correct: > > al...@mugen /var/lib/pacman >> ls -l > total 1060 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 372930 Jun 15 06:43 community.db.tar.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2729 Jun 15 06:43 community-testing.db.tar.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 464860 Jun 15 03:45 extra.db.tar.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 194560 Jun 15 18:35 extra.db.tar.gz.part > drwxr-xr-x 513 root root 24576 Jun 15 17:51 local > drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Jun 15 18:35 sync > > This is the bug I thought Dan had struck (which Roman filed): > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15657 > > But I tried replicating using the most out of date mirror I could find, > stopping the extra repo download partway, and the switching to my usual > up-to-date mirror: > >> sudo /home/arch/code/pacman/src/pacman/pacman -Syu > :: Synchronizing package databases... > kernel64 1.7K 404.4K/s 00:00:00 [######################] > 100% > testing 27.0K 39.3K/s 00:00:01 [######################] > 100% > core 36.2K 38.8K/s 00:00:01 [######################] > 100% > warning: resuming download of extra.db.tar.gz not possible; starting over > extra 454.1K 100.5K/s 00:00:05 [######################] > 100% > community-testing 2.7K 15.2M/s 00:00:00 [######################] > 100% > community 364.2K 82.4K/s 00:00:04 [######################] > 100% > :: Starting full system upgrade... > there is nothing to do > > And that seems fine.
We do a lot of checks of the times of the files in the download code so it shouldn't be likely that we are trying to finish an older db file with a newer one. It seems more like the remote server was playing with us as far as reported file size vs. what it sent us or something, but I'm not sure... -Dan
