On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>> For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index,
>>> then comparing the outputs with
>>>
>>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_conf
On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index,
>> then comparing the outputs with
>>
>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig}
>> %{?_bt_dupsort} debug
On 10/22/2012 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index,
then comparing the outputs with
/usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig}
%{?_bt_dupsort} debug
may be informative. The access patterns SHOULD be similar.
first
On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> ps: i have no idea who is mancoosi, or what he identified, you should had
> provided link to that, not assume everybody knows your friends
;-)
Mancoosi was a 3y EU funded research project
http://mancoosi.org
One of the difference
On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 22.10.2012 04:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> There are too may possible causes to hazard a guess, including
>> a well documented difference in behavior detected by Mancoosi years
>> ago, and also identifying precisely what metadata (and
>> w
On 22.10.2012 04:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
There are too may possible causes to hazard a guess, including
a well documented difference in behavior detected by Mancoosi years
ago, and also identifying precisely what metadata (and
what rpm version was used to build all the packages).
rpm version
On Oct 22, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :(
>>>
>>
>> Um … you managed to *build* ~8500 packages using a b
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>
> >
> > Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :(
> >
>
> Um … you managed to *build* ~8500 packages using a buggy
> rpmbuild in rpm-5.4.10.
>
> What makes *rebuilding* har
On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>
> Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :(
>
Um … you managed to *build* ~8500 packages using a buggy
rpmbuild in rpm-5.4.10.
What makes *rebuilding* harder than building?
Note that not all 8500 packages are affected (o
Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> Quick question, does passing '--nohmacs' option give the same effect as
> your patch to lib/verify.c? In that case we could just make it default
> and add '--hmacs' option.
No. --nohmacs option disables checking hmac entirely even for truly
modified files (with hmac verify
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, Adam Osuchowski wrote:
> Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > I'm afraid your patch doesn't work for me, I'm still getting bad md5
> > for config files:
> >
> > $ rpm -V wget
> > ..5. c /etc/wgetrc
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Ok, I made investigation one more time and pro
On 22.10.2012 04:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
NO
D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO
^CD: Exiting on signal(0x2) …
This report does nothing except document the existence.
that's how it starts
12 matches
Mail list logo
