On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: . > > I applied only the lib/fsm.c part, I saw that inode numbers were already > hashed in rpm5, they just weren't propagated I think. >
If not propagated (by replacing the int32_t in the metadata with the truncated hash of the ino64_t), then something else is wrong (I doubt it, but I have no idea what patches are applied). Yes you need to build the rpm with the truncated hash. Using the index instead of the value (and the hack when xdev filesystem boundary is crossed) is less general because it implicitly assumes that all hard links are contained in the same package ... ... which is a pretty safe assumption because of hoary practice but someone is sure to complain. *shrug* its all pretty much a fuss about nothing that eventually occurs. In most cases a a later rebuild is gud enuf to repair the accidental collision. 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl > baggins<at>pld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
