On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:44, Daniel Johnson wrote: > I don't know exactly why it's happening, but I have figured out some > things. The "file changed as we read it" warning does occur sometimes > with tar 1.15.1, but it always returned an exit code of 0 in such > cases. It would return 1 if a fatal error occurred. Starting with > 1.16, tar now returns 0 for success, 1 for non-fatal errors (like the > file changed one) and 2 for fatal errors. The problem is that dpkg- > deb fails if tar returns a non-zero exit code. Now dpkg-deb could be > patched, but since you'd still want it to fail for truly fatal errors > and the fatal error code changed from 1 to 2, it needs to know which > version of tar it's using or Bad Things could happen. Daniel,
For the moment, the major problem seems to be in 10.4/unstable, where we know the version of tar. So why don't you go ahead and commit your patch to dpkg there _ (with if you want a versioned dep on tar). I've no idea about the bootstrap process (just know it is not starting with just symlinks in %p pointing to corresponding things in /usr, and then building in strict build-order with '%i' silently substituted by '%p' until dpkg is installed). But I can't see how such a patch _ sorry: much better, correction _ of dpkg in that tree could have any negative impact, even on the bootstrap process (and even if it was as I would have thought). So please commit your correction to dpkg, unless someone screams with good arguments in the next couple of hours ... > Another bit of information is that the code in tar that checks if a > "file changed as we read it" changed after 1.15.1. Previously, the > warning occurred if a file's ctime changed during archiving; now it > will also occur if the file's size increases. I don't know why either > of these situations is happening though. I too would have by far preferred to understand this before; but 'unstable' is not 'experimental', and we shouldn't hold up a fix that's anyway needed _ for consistency between the 2 pkgs _, just in order to pursue an experiment... (I would bet rather on the ctime than on the size _ which looks to me as an almost redundant test _, but evidence for that will disappear after your patch .. (sigh) ) Best, Jean-Francois ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
