On Sat, 5 May 2001, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Richard Kettlewell writes: > > On 10 Mar 2001, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > > >> I still can't reproduce it. Perhaps there is some other > >> difference. I'll give up trying to reproduce it for now. > >> > >> Do you have any other information about how you've tracked down the > >> problem to that particular revision? I've just re-read the diff > >> and still can't spot any possible problems. > > > > Any chance of an answer to this? > > Some time ago you asked if I could help on this. But it's not > possible for me to do anything if you won't answer my requests for > further information.
The removal of this patch had no effect, for Dan's reproducible segfault. I did it locally, on HEAD a few months ago, and it still segfaulted in the exact same spot. I have not tested any dpkg from the 1.9 series(which includes my unitialized vars fix), against Dan's bug. > > | From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Subject: dpkg segfaults > | Newsgroups: chiark.mail.debian.dpkg > | To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 18:32:01 GMT > | Resent-From: [email protected] > | Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > | Dan managed to come up with a way to reproduce a dpkg segfault. After > | some poking around with dpkg the problem turned out to be that the > | filelist was being written over the package information. Oops! > | > | The problem seems to be a patch applied to main/filesdb.c on Dec 5 1999 > | > (http://cvs.debian.org/dpkg/main/filesdb.c.diff?r1=1.10&r2=1.11&cvsroot=dpkg) > | which was included in dpkg 1.6.1 or 1.6.2. The patch came from Richard > | Kettlewell and reduces the dpkg memory uses.
