[arch-dev-public] [community] database on i686
The i686 [community] database on gerolde is currently a copy of the x86_64 database. It is correct on sigurd. Yay for the "Architecture" option in pacman.conf that caused many people to notice this! Did someone adjust the rsync job recently? It is just the database that is affected. All the package (symlinks) are still for the i686 version. Allan
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
The i686 [community] database on gerolde is currently a copy of the x86_64 database. It is correct on sigurd. Yay for the "Architecture" option in pacman.conf that caused many people to notice this!
Did someone adjust the rsync job recently? It is just the database that is affected. All the package (symlinks) are still for the i686 version.
I did...uh oh. Nothing like this should have been affected though, quite odd? I'm going to bed but /arch/cron-jobs/community-sync or something like that, runs via the community user on gerolde now. -Dan
Old "non-bugs" strike again! Thanks for finding it, Allan, and if anyone has a samba bugzilla account and would like to reopen that bug with our log, that would be great. https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977 http://paste.pocoo.org/show/533643/ -Dan On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
The i686 [community] database on gerolde is currently a copy of the x86_64 database. It is correct on sigurd. Yay for the "Architecture" option in pacman.conf that caused many people to notice this!
Did someone adjust the rsync job recently? It is just the database that is affected. All the package (symlinks) are still for the i686 version.
I did...uh oh. Nothing like this should have been affected though, quite odd? I'm going to bed but /arch/cron-jobs/community-sync or something like that, runs via the community user on gerolde now.
-Dan
On 12/01/12 15:54, Dan McGee wrote:
Old "non-bugs" strike again! Thanks for finding it, Allan, and if anyone has a samba bugzilla account and would like to reopen that bug with our log, that would be great.
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977 http://paste.pocoo.org/show/533643/
It probably is a non-bug given it is documented... This is in "man rsync" under --delay-updates: Note also that you should not use an absolute path to --partial-dir unless (1) there is no chance of any of the files in the transfer having the same name (since all the updated files will be put into a single directory if the path is absolute) Allan
participants (2)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dan McGee