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

Bug#449572: marked as done (*_Packages modification date frozen wrongly)

Your message dated Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:29:13 +0100
with message-id <AANLkTi=3X-Y+ncZ_LSzgNxP67Q7cOH_VVSogPeYWvohY@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Close: *_Packages modification date frozen wrongly
has caused the Debian Bug report #449572,
regarding *_Packages modification date frozen wrongly
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
449572: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=449572
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
X-Debbugs-No-Ack: please
Package: apt
Version: 0.7.9
Severity: wishlist

I notice the modification date of /var/lib/apt/lists/*_Packages is
frozen for no good reason and does not reflect the freshness of that
file's contents, under your new Diffs updating system.

No big deal you might say, but one needs to add a -u to cpio -idvm if
transferring it from another machine, and it looks bad and doesn't
reflect reality.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 0.7.26~exp5

As described in the report, it is really a bit strange and bogus.
Thankfully it was fixed already, but "thanks" to the amount of open bugs
this older duplicate went unnoticed until now - i am fixing that now. ;)

  * methods/rred.cc:
    - use the patchfile modification time instead of the one from the
      "old" file - thanks to Philipp Weis for noticing! (Closes: #571541)


Thanks for reporting the issue the first time,
sorry that we need a second report to fix it and:

Best regards

David Kalnischkies

--- End Message ---
Reply to: