On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:05:15AM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:33:58 +0100
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What worry me about the patch is the fact that create_lock() and
check_dpkglock() are not performed in the same order. In particular, if
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:33:58 +0100
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What worry me about the patch is the fact that create_lock() and
check_dpkglock() are not performed in the same order. In particular, if
create_lock() fail we exit with error 0 instead of 1 thus maybe
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:05:35PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:11:21 +0100
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far none of the people affected has been positive that it actually
fixed the bug for them. This is a problem.
Sure it does, it fixes it for me. And
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
No, it is not adding any race condition. If understand correctly from
the comments in the code, you are referring to the fact that the child
could print to stdout after the parent has already died, hence
cluttering other dpkg output, right?
My patch
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I took a look at the patch and I understand the same.
I agree it would have been nice to know exactly why the signal code
doesn't work reliably but I don't see any drawback to use this new
method.
Can you reproduce the
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I took a look at the patch and I understand the same.
I agree it would have been nice to know exactly why the signal code
doesn't work reliably but I don't see any drawback to use
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:19:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No, I don't remember having encountered this problem, but the information
provided by others looks convincing.
I would apply the patch, check that update-menus still works according to
your wishes and trust the others to verify
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:11:21 +0100
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:19:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No, I don't remember having encountered this problem, but the information
provided by others looks convincing.
I would apply the patch, check that
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 10:57:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
The bug is much probably in the C library. It would really help if we
had a test-case and know which kind of system are affected.
Having a test-case would indeed be nice. However, as I already told, I'm
not even able to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:57:11 +0100
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 02:15:20PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote:
Package: menu
Version: Patch to just fork and die, instead of waiting on a signal
Followup-For: Bug #374834
Hi,
I prepared a patch
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 02:15:20PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote:
Package: menu
Version: Patch to just fork and die, instead of waiting on a signal
Followup-For: Bug #374834
Hi,
I prepared a patch that removes the singal business. The logic used to
be:
- Parent forks, stays
11 matches
Mail list logo
