Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey guys,
I tracked down the problem and fixed it. The basic problem is that
there are two packages in i686 right now that have their arch set to
x86_64:
texlive-core
texlive-htmlxml
Looks like
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I tracked down the problem and fixed it. The basic problem is that
> there are two packages in i686 right now that have their arch set to
> x86_64:
>
> texlive-core
> texlive-htmlxml
Looks like the little "
Hey guys,
I tracked down the problem and fixed it. The basic problem is that
there are two packages in i686 right now that have their arch set to
x86_64:
texlive-core
texlive-htmlxml
ATTENTION: The dbscripts should be updated to ensure that this doesn't
happen. The only valid arches for any db.t
2008/9/13 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/9/12 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> They're stored in /tmp/archweb_update.log and emailed to me once a
>>> day. This is all done in the cron script located at
>>
2008/9/13 Daniel Isenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:12:46 +0200
> Alexander Fehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The x86_64 orphaning has happened again some minutes ago. Moreover,
>> the i686 packages from extra are now completely gone from the web
>> interface.
>>
>> Alex
>
>
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:12:46 +0200
Alexander Fehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The x86_64 orphaning has happened again some minutes ago. Moreover,
> the i686 packages from extra are now completely gone from the web
> interface.
>
> Alex
I would suggest that no developer commit anything or update
Dusty Phillips schrieb:
a) is WTF. I just checked the current state of the db.tar.gz and they
seem to contain packages that reporead claims were removed. So it
doesn't look like anything is breaking the db.tar.gz. It seems more
like reporead is not reading the whole file. But its still possible
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/12 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> They're stored in /tmp/archweb_update.log and emailed to me once a
>> day. This is all done in the cron script located at
>> /etc/cron.hourly/update_web_db.sh
>
> What about
2008/9/12 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> They're stored in /tmp/archweb_update.log and emailed to me once a
> day. This is all done in the cron script located at
> /etc/cron.hourly/update_web_db.sh
What about debug level messages?
> 2008-09-12 18:02:38 -> INFO: Finished repo parsing
> 2008-
The x86_64 orphaning has happened again some minutes ago. Moreover, the
i686 packages from extra are now completely gone from the web interface.
Alex
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dusty Phillips schrieb:
>>
>> I think so... not sure if this is a proper test of it but it fails:
>>
>> dusty:x86_64 $ head -c 1 extra.db.tar.gz | tar -xz
>>
>> gzip: stdin: unexpected end of file
>> tar: Unexpected EO
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> reporead does some great stuff with logger (debug and info). Do you
> know if any of those logged messages are saved?
They're stored in /tmp/archweb_update.log and emailed to me once a
day. This is all done in the cron sc
Dusty Phillips schrieb:
I think so... not sure if this is a proper test of it but it fails:
dusty:x86_64 $ head -c 1 extra.db.tar.gz | tar -xz
gzip: stdin: unexpected end of file
tar: Unexpected EOF in archive
tar: Unexpected EOF in archive
tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
repore
2008/9/12 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/9/12 Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
>>> it was all packages from L to Z)
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Eric Belanger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly showing up as
recently updated on t
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/9/12 Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
>>> it was
Dusty Phillips wrote:
2008/9/12 Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly showing up as
recently updated on the web site. This just happened again with packag
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/12 Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
>> it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly showing up as
>> recen
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/12 Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
>> it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly showing up as
>> recen
2008/9/12 Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
> it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly showing up as
> recently updated on the web site. This just happened again with packages in
> extra x8
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Eric Belanger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686 (IIRC
> it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly showing up as
> recently updated on the web site. This just happened agai
Hi,
I don't know if you remember but a while ago a huge part of extra i686
(IIRC it was all packages from L to Z) were orphaned and erroneouly
showing up as recently updated on the web site. This just happened again with
packages in extra x86_64. I don't know what could caused that but it's
22 matches
Mail list logo
