clemens fischer wrote:
Gaetan Bisson wrote:
If that's easy then it shouldn't be too hard for you to open a bug report on the tracker and submit a patch.
Then what component does the actual extracting? Is it libfetch? That would be an upstream moving target, because it comes from netbsd. Do you guys accept patches against libfetch in this case?
Seems libarchive is used to handle packages. pacman.git lib/libalpm/add.c::perform_extraction() is hard to understand. It should be the place the warning I cited came from. If that is the case, ENOSPC wasn't the cause of it. I don't understand two things: - where exactly are files extracted to? If they go to /, how would people use pacman when root is mounted ro (in the case of eg. /.INSTALL)? If I can freely determine where files go via archive_entry_set_pathname(), where's the problem in using the value of TMPDIR as a prefix and move the file into its final position when libalpm declares the transaction ok? - the file causing the warning was ".INSTALL". It contains upgrade/install scriptlets. How can a problem extracting an important file like this be considered a warning? clemens