On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
On 30/10/10 23:40, Xavier Chantry wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Nagy Gaborng...@bibl.u-szeged.hu
wrote:
Wouldn't this cause a notable slow-down?
I thought the issue was rather that the local db entries
This should hopefully reduce local db corruption issues.
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org
---
lib/libalpm/be_local.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/libalpm/be_local.c b/lib/libalpm/be_local.c
index 4574bd4..cb12abb 100644
---
This should hopefully reduce local db corruption issues.
Signed-off-by: Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org
---
lib/libalpm/be_local.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/libalpm/be_local.c b/lib/libalpm/be_local.c
index 4574bd4..cb12abb 100644
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Nagy Gabor ng...@bibl.u-szeged.hu wrote:
Wouldn't this cause a notable slow-down?
I thought the issue was rather that the local db entries would be
synced when the actual package files are probably not synced.
But if we sync everything, then it's very likely to
On 30/10/10 23:40, Xavier Chantry wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Nagy Gaborng...@bibl.u-szeged.hu wrote:
Wouldn't this cause a notable slow-down?
I thought the issue was rather that the local db entries would be
synced when the actual package files are probably not synced.
But if
