[SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-180-g4cde802

2012-01-02 Thread Guillem Jover
The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit 61b3201ddbd1fc5b8683309138d5482c95716f88 Author: Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org Date: Tue Nov 15 21:59:17 2011 +0100 dpkg: Switch from foreign arch option to add and remove commands The --foreign-architecture

[SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-180-g4cde802

2012-01-02 Thread Guillem Jover
The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit 4cde802d703fac429fb3837a73c570046f1f698a Author: Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org Date: Tue Nov 15 21:59:17 2011 +0100 dpkg: Add architecture checks to --audit diff --git a/src/enquiry.c b/src/enquiry.c index

[SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-180-g4cde802

2012-01-02 Thread Guillem Jover
The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit 1c1c2f7dc4b191f665f7cf7d8f70e7b66f942212 Author: Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org Date: Tue Nov 15 21:59:17 2011 +0100 libdpkg: Add new dpkg_arch database interface The arch database will store all known

[SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-181-gc9bfb5c

2012-01-02 Thread Sven Joachim
The following commit has been merged in the master branch: commit c9bfb5c6ce37f4d2ccfef4ee5c41be21b8d07f7c Author: Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de Date: Mon Jan 2 11:24:46 2012 +0100 German dpkg translation update Update to 1018t. diff --git a/po/de.po b/po/de.po index

Re: Bug#571776: document symbols

2012-01-02 Thread Russ Allbery
Hello folks, I took some time today and wrote a first draft of a new section of Policy documenting symbols files, and the revisions to shlibs for their interaction. Please review. There's quite a lot of material here, including details from dpkg-shlibdeps, dpkg-gensymbols, and deb-symbols

Bug#613428: dpkg --force-unsafe-io still calls fsync()

2012-01-02 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[ Mike Hommey ] While this is stricly true, there are still two fsync()s occuring on each package unpack, making the whole thing still slow when installing many packages at a time. These happen for /var/lib/dpkg/updates and /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci. [ Raphael Hertzog ] This is on purpose.

Bug#613428: dpkg --force-unsafe-io still calls fsync()

2012-01-02 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The users of --force-unsafe-io seem to be those that [...] In retrospect, introducing --force-unsafe-io was probably a mistake. Making sure to always call a wrapper function that behaves just like fsync() but can be disabled would be a maintenance burden for almost no

Bug#613428: dpkg --force-unsafe-io still calls fsync()

2012-01-02 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [ Mike Hommey ] While this is stricly true, there are still two fsync()s occuring on each package unpack, making the whole thing still slow when installing many packages at a time. These happen for /var/lib/dpkg/updates and

Bug#613428: dpkg --force-unsafe-io still calls fsync()

2012-01-02 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
Thank you for the quick reply. I wish you a happy new year. :) [Raphael Hertzog] This is an option that we wish it did not exist. OK. Still do not explain to me in what situation or use case it is useful drop fsync() for the package files while still using fsync() on /var/lib/dpkg/updates and

Bug#613428: dpkg --force-unsafe-io still calls fsync()

2012-01-02 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I would expect these users to also want the extra performance gained by dropping the left behind fsyncs()? Why should this use case want the remaining fsync()s in place? Because they care about the integrity of their system? We de not want to

Bug#613428: dpkg --force-unsafe-io still calls fsync()

2012-01-02 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Raphael Hertzog] Because they care about the integrity of their system? We de not want to make it easy to corrupt your dpkg database. Your comment do not make sense to me. I fail to understand how those caring about the integrity of their system during the dpkg run would use

Bug#653846: Please add an option for dpkg-buildflags to emit a different optimization level

2012-01-02 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:50:47AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: It's perhaps ugly, but DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-Os works fine for me. Why would it be ugly? I think that's the correct interface to change the

Bug#653846: Please add an option for dpkg-buildflags to emit a different optimization level

2012-01-02 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Is the evaluation order of GCC options properly specified, i.e. is there a guarantee that -Os overrides the previous -O2 Yes. (From the manual: If you use multiple -O options, with or without level numbers, the last such option is the one that is

Bug#653846: Please add an option for dpkg-buildflags to emit a different optimization level

2012-01-02 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 12:59:16PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Is the evaluation order of GCC options properly specified, i.e. is there a guarantee that -Os overrides the previous -O2 Yes. (From the manual: If you use multiple -O options, with or