On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:17:07PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Can we not just ignore it if it fails since it is non-fatal?
If we ignore it we should at least add a debug/warning message if it fails, I guess.
Fair enough.
I've attached an updated version of the patch which emits a warning when the timestamp could not be updated. The debug message has been updated to state that the extraction is just a timestamp update, as well.
I don't think the checkfile should be unlinked here, should it? It will certainly fail if you first unlink and afterwards try to rename it.
Of course. I think you're reading the diff wrong. The unlink is *replaced* with a rename in the new code.
Never mind, I was screwed because no syntax highlighting existed. Regards, Patrick