> On Friday 15 February 2008 09:16, Nathan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 22:42 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: >> > Package: xfsprogs >> > Version: 2.8.11-1 >> > Severity: critical >> > Justification: breaks the whole system >> >> Heh, er, just a tad extreme? (its not clear how an xfs_check SEGV >> can "break the whole system"...?) > > Not extreme IMHO. I have a system that IS broken because of XFS > corruption
Right. And that corruption could have any of a million causes, many of which have nothing to do with XFS, and none of which have anything to do with xfs_check, which is the subject of this bug. > which xfs_check can't handle due to this SEGV. Right. But you claim this bug (465733) is critical because the nature of this bug (xfs_check SEGV) "breaks the whole system" - which is clearly not the case (xfs_check has nothing to do with your system being broken, as said breakage had occurred long before you tried to run xfs_check, and xfs_check didn't make that situation any worse - its a read-only command). Anyway, we're arguing semantics here. There's a problem, lets focus on that and progress... no xfs_repair output? >> Could you run xfs_metadump(8) on the device, put it somewhere that it >> can be downloaded, and send this mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I can do that >> for you if you prefer the Debian bug tracking system), and someone will >> take a look at it from SGI. > > OK. > > Also I could just drop by the Melbourne office and deliver an IDE disk if > that helps. Sure, that'd be great - drop it in for Barry Naujok to take a look at (tell him I sent you, he'll like that). cheers. -- Nathan
