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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Subject: dpkg segfaults | Newsgroups: chiark.mail.debian.dpkg | To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 18:32:01 GMT | Resent-From: [email protected] | Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | 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 :) ttfn/rjk
