[ Hmm, forgot to send this yesterday after the push. :) ] On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 23:02:55 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> schrieb am Di., 23. Nov. 2021, 22:14: > > On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 18:16:30 +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > > while updating the translation of the man pages, I stumbled over one > > > sentence I could not make sense of: > > > > > > "The file mode check failed (since dpkg 1.21.0). This check currently > > > only applies to regular files that have a known digest, and on the > > > filesystem are not regular files." > > > > > > The part after the "and" is unclear. A filesystem without regular > > > files? > > > > Hmm, right when writing that I did pause for a bit thinking whether it > > was clear or not, but I guess my bias tricked me. :) Let me retry: > > > > The file mode check failed (since dpkg 1.21.0). This check currently > > only applies to pathnames that have a known digest and are not regular > > files on the filesystem.
> Sorry for the phone answer, but as I had to read that three times, I > figured I'd note that. I think I got it now: There is a conflict between > having a digest and being an irregular file. > > First I wondered: Huh is this checking digests of such files, this makes no > sense? I was like, should this be an or? > > Second I forgot. > > Turn the "and" into a "but" and I think it gets OK. Currently the > contradiction is not easy to deduct. > > Or write explicitly that having a digest conflicts with actually not being > s regular file. Ok, I've ended up with this which I've just pushed to git: ,--- The file mode check failed (since dpkg 1.21.0). Because pathname metadata is currently not tracked, this check can only be partially emulated via a very simple heuristic for pathnames that have a known digest, which implies they should be regular files, where the check will fail if the pathname is not a regular file on the filesystem. This check will currently never succeed as it does not have enough information available. `--- I can refine further if it's still not clear. :) Thanks, Guillem
