Re: 2.4.0 release
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm in the same spot. I'll get to it at some point, but I don't think it
> needs to hold up the upload.
Ok
> Raphael Geissert writes:
>> * switch to use i18n/SUPPORTED instead of local copy of locale codes
>> built from ISO 639-1..3 -- probably for a future release since it
>> requires some work on the eglibc side.
>
> Agreed.
Just to make it clear: we would need to ship a copy of i18n/SUPPORTED since
it may vary.
> I think we're good for an upload if you want to make one, or I can try to
> get to one (but probably not today).
I probably won't have time to make one before Friday (school projects...)
so if you have time please go ahead. I ran the testsuite and it passed[1].
[1] As a matter of fact, the huge-usr-share test fails on my machine for
some time now. I haven't been able to determine what's causing this
behaviour. I briefly talked about it with Adam once but he was unable to
reproduce the failure. See:
-I: huge-usr-share-percent: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 2076kB 99%
+I: huge-usr-share-percent: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 2064kB 100%
But:
$ debc debian/tests/*changes | grep \\./usr/share
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-04-14 16:26 ./usr/share/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-04-14 16:26 ./usr/share/doc/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-04-14 16:26 ./usr/share/doc/huge-usr-
share-percent/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 1017 2010-02-19 23:00 ./usr/share/doc/huge-usr-
share-percent/copyright
-rw-r--r-- root/root 215 2010-04-14 16:26 ./usr/share/doc/huge-usr-
share-percent/changelog.gz
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2010-04-14 16:26 ./usr/share/a/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 2097152 2010-04-14 16:26 ./usr/share/a/zero
2097152 + 2017 + 215 = 2098384 bytes
checks/huge-usr-share uses -k which means block-size=1K, then we have 2098kB
So:
a) size of usr/share is reported as 2064kB but tar says they are 2098kB.
b) Modifying the check to use --apparent-size[2] (which, correct me if I'm
wrong, is what we should be using) reports it as 2050kB -- still not
matching the size reported by tar.
c) I believe the result I'm getting even though it doesn't match the size
reported by tar, is "more correct." Reason being that it reports a 100% of
the consumed space being under usr/share, which is true (there's no single
file or directory outside /usr/share in the test case.)
What do you think?
I'm using an i686, FWIW.
[2] "print apparent sizes, rather than disk usage; although the apparent
size is usually smaller, it may be larger due to holes in (`sparse') files,
internal fragmentation, indirect blocks, and the like." -- du(1)
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Reply to: