Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:18:47 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Those are related to the fsync()/sync() changes in dpkg from some time > > ago, the patches would: > > > > 1) Switch back from sync() to fsync() before rename() (while k

Re: Transferring conffiles between packages (Re: Bug#564254: conflicting /etc/bash_completion)

Hi! On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 15:14:36 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > On 2010-01-08, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > I got this on the buildd: > > Unpacking bash-completion (from .../bash-completion_1%3a1.1-3_all.deb) ... > > dpkg: error processing > > /home/buildd/build/chroot-unstable/var/cache/apt/archive

Re: problems with autoreconf

On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 07:20:42 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 20:43:17 -0500, Michael Schmidt wrote: > > then i tried running the configure script and it broke like this > > > checking for bcopy... yes > > checking for memcpy... yes > > checking for setsid... yes > > checking

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

Hi, On Sat, 06 Nov 2010, Guillem Jover wrote: > Finally, while accepting patch 2) alone might make sense, accepting 1) > alone would not. BTW, I think we should go with patch 2 alone currently (i.e. just add --force-unsafe-io). Continuing to use sync() instead of fsync() is the best compromise w

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

On 2010-11-06 08:46 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:18:47 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> What are the implications for ext4 and btrfs? > > They are going to be slower with this change. Are you sure this is t

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 10:41:46 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2010-11-06 08:46 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:18:47 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > What are the implications for ext4 and btrfs? > > > >

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

Hi! On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 10:20:29 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 06 Nov 2010, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Finally, while accepting patch 2) alone might make sense, accepting 1) > > alone would not. > > BTW, I think we should go with patch 2 alone currently (i.e. just add > --force-unsafe-i

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

Guillem Jover wrote: > The worst that could happen on other file systems w/o the sync()/fsync() > before rename()s for extracted files was that the dpkg database might > get slightly out of sync relative to what was installed on disk, but > that's at most confusing, nothing compared to getting zer

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:33:14 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Guillem Jover wrote: > > The worst that could happen on other file systems w/o the sync()/fsync() > > before rename()s for extracted files was that the dpkg database might > > get slightly out of sync relative to what was installed on d

Re: Pre-approval request for dpkg sync() changes for squeeze

Guillem Jover wrote: > Ah, sorry for the noise. I can see why one would be annoyed with Ted's proposed solutions (e.g., don't crash), yes. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscr