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

Re: dpkg segfaults

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.

| From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@valinux.com>
| Subject: dpkg segfaults
| Newsgroups: chiark.mail.debian.dpkg
| To: debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, dan@debian.org
| Cc: rjk@sfere.greenend.org.uk
| Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 18:32:01 GMT
| Resent-From: debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org
| Resent-Message-ID: <qTmK7.A.phC.CY8o6@murphy>
| Message-ID: <20010305175928.Q352@cistron.nl>
| 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.
| I'm going to sit down tonight and carefully go over that patch to
| see if I can figure out what it does wrong. If I can't figure it
| out I'll guess I'll undo it (and reintroduce --smallmem as well I guess).
| Richard, this was your patch, I expect some feedback from you as well :)


Reply to: