Your message dated Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:17:04 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#281057: fixed in dpkg 1.15.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #281057,
regarding dpkg memory exhausting when upgrading with --root
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.33
# via tagpending
#
# dpkg (1.15.0) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
#
# * Properly lstat the correct file when using --root on package upgrade.
#Thanks to Egmont Koblinger. Closes: #281057
#
package dselect dpkg-dev dpkg
tags 281057
Hot chicks dig bigger, larger, mega pricks
http://www.Fordevers.com/
See What You Missed Out In 2008
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your message dated Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:32:03 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#281057: fixed in dpkg 1.15.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #281057,
regarding dpkg memory exhausting when upgrading with --root
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim th
Hello,
FWIW I rebased the patchs. Please find them attached. It looks like 2 pretty
minor bugfixes that should be safe to apply.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
>From fb03c754185dfb50c34b6863ed5060e3d0a784
Egmont Koblinger writes ("Bug#281057: ..."):
> I can't remember what I did when I updated the patch, but a simple
> text merging sounds more probable than performing all the tests again.
Right.
> Please note that I no longer work for the company where we maintained
>
Hi Ian,
I can't remember what I did when I updated the patch, but a simple
text merging sounds more probable than performing all the tests again.
Please note that I no longer work for the company where we maintained
a dpkg-based Linux distro and kept on sending bugreports or patches to
mainstream
I've looked at the situation here and I think I agree with Egmont's
analysis in his original report in November 2004. In particular, I
agree with his assertion about the memory leak due to failed lstats in
the code in 1.10.24:
cfile->namenode->filestat = (struct stat *) nfmalloc(sizeof(struct
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Ping!"):
> Guillem or Ian, can you look at the patches?
I'll try to take a look at this next weekend. I've decided that I
want to become much more active wrt dpkg with my personal hat on.
Thanks to Egmont for the detailed investigations. This should be
straightforw
Hello Egmont,
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> During these 2 years no valuable comments arrived from any Debian/Dpkg
> developers. I wonder why... Isn't there anyone caring about this bug? (Is
> there anyone caring about Dpkg at all?) Or you simply lack developer
> resources? (Well,
## ####### ## ##
## ## ## ### ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## #### ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
Ping! ...
It was 2 years ago that I posted this bugreport, including:
- detailed description of what to do for the bug to occur,
- detailed explanation where and why the source is buggy,
- patch to fix the problem.
Just a note I haven't mentioned before: this patch has already survived 2
years
Hi,
I send these two patches updated to the newest dpkg (namely 1.13.22).
Is there any chance that they'll be reviewed and probably committed by
someone around there?
--
Egmont
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=281057
diff -Naur dpkg-1.13.22.orig/src/processarc.c dpkg-1.
Any news?
The patch is waiting to be applied since more than a year ago...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14 matches
Mail list logo
