Francesco Poli wrote: > I hope I manage to find the time to test your patch soon... > > Do you think your patch is copyrighted by you, or is it trivial enough > that it is not covered by copyright?
It's trivial imho. I just looked at the code and this seemed to be the most obvious missing piece of input validation. Note that this would *not* fix the underlying problem, which was probably a cupt bug, or me hitting ^C at the wrong moment, or cosmic rays, or whatever. But that seems fine to me --- as long as apt-listbugs is defensive about the input it gets, it should be easier to diagnose the problem the next time someone runs into something like this. > On Wed, 18 May 2011 11:53:48 -0500 Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> My vague suspicion is that version->versionString was empty for some >> reason [...] > which apt-listbugs would see as four fields instead of five. > Anyway, it's possible that this is what happened, but, why? > Did you manage to understand whether and *why* Cupt sent something > wrong in the Version 2 APT hook protocol on your qemu-emulated system? No, sadly. I didn't manage to reproduce it and I am not familiar enough with cupt yet to know how the versions and other fields (e.g., package names) get set. > And why does it work correctly for subsequent upgrades? That's an easier question. Whatever triggered the formatting going wrong before the squeeze->experimental upgrade didn't happen once I had upgraded to experimental. I did not upgrade cupt in the process, so I believe this is just about what states the packages had to pass through. Sorry I have nothing more satisfying to offer. It would indeed be nicer to solve it completely. Regards, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
