[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Wanted: really weird status files from production machines

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:35:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As I report on debian-dpkg in
>  <18130.58341.210815.470424@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
> I'm proposing to deploy a new dpkg status file parser.
> It would be bad if someone installed the new dpkg but then the new
> dpkg rejected their status file.  I think I've captured the complete
> historical syntax as accepted generated by existing dpkg versions, but
> the existing parser is rather too extensively- written to be able to
> do a formal analysis.  It is possible (even likely) that there
> constructions accepted by the old parser but rejected by the new.  I
> want to be sure that no such constructions exist in the wild.
> So if you have a machine which you have reason to believe has unusual
> entries in its status file, please send me copies of the unusual
> stanzas.
> Alternatively, download the executable `perftest'
>   http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/git/dpkg/dpkg.speedup/build-tree/src/perftest
> and run
>   .../perftest a1 y
> which should print `done y' and not complain about any syntax errors.

When asking on people a public mailing list to download and run
binaries, I sugges you at least sign your email; providing sources would
be even better.  Running unknown binaries isn't exactly recommended
practise =)

Regards: David
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/

Reply to: