On 19/02/13 06:40, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Feb 17, 2013 11:12 PM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 18/02/13 12:55, Dave Reisner wrote:
Avoids the segfault seen in FS#33911.
Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner <dreisner@archlinux.org> --- This is sort of an easy cop-out, but also perhaps the right thing to
blindly append .sig to the URL we have then we're just going to end up back at the problem which commit 27067b137286a4 attempted to solve, but without
do? If we the aid
of being able to know what the followed URL is (since we didn't download anything).
So... if you have "RemoteFileSigLevel = Required" and only have the package and not the signature in the cache, this will not download the signature and give a corrupt package warning.
Is that situation fine to "ignore"? Or should we test both the file and the signature are present before skipping the step? I almost think it would make sense to always download the file when using a URL with "pacman -U".
Allan
I explicitly fixed the scenario where we look in the file cache for the package, but we can't always know beforehand because of redirects and usage of a temp filename.
That said, we can probably make this logic smarter than it currently is.
OK - I will take the patch as is. It fixes the segfault. Then I will file a bug report about the case I pointed out above. Allan