On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:50:01PM +0000, dAniel hAhler wrote: > The problem occured in the Ubuntu development version, because of reverting > back to db4.5 for the bsddb3 extension (from db4.6). > > Sure, that's not a common case (or a bug in Debian), but it appears to me > that > deleting the last_seen DB is better than having no apt-listchanges reports > anymore.
No, I disagree. The underlying issue is that the db library was/is broken. Once it's fixed, apt-listchanges will work properly again. With your patch you trash the db, it's definitely incorrect, as you'll end up missing a lot of reports. Note that once the db is fixed, it'll show all the changelog it couldn't show because it's broken, whereas your solution just drops all known changelogs, hence you wont see a lot of changelogs (remember that the first install of a package don't show any changelog, and that removing the db is the same as saying every package is at its first install. Not nice). > The point here is that DB failure should get handled better by > apt-listchanges: when recreating the DB is not an option, it could just exit > with a more applicable error message, e.g. > "The last_seen database (%s) appears to be broken. You may want to inspect > the > database file or remove it manually." Yes, I agree a humanly readable warning is better. I can do that. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpYe0eSQf72f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
