bug #1104474

Jeffrey Johnson n3npq at me.com
Tue Mar 12 21:42:27 CET 2013

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> I applied only the lib/fsm.c part, I saw that inode numbers were already
> hashed in rpm5, they just weren't propagated I think.

If not propagated (by replacing the int32_t in the metadata with the truncated hash
of the ino64_t), then something else is wrong (I doubt it, but I have no idea what patches
are applied).

Yes you need to build the rpm with the truncated hash. Using the index instead of
the value (and the hack when xdev filesystem boundary is crossed) is less general
because it implicitly assumes that all hard links are contained in the same package ...
... which is a pretty safe assumption because of hoary practice but someone
is sure to complain.

*shrug* its all pretty much a fuss about nothing that eventually occurs. In most
cases a a later rebuild is gud enuf to repair the accidental collision.

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> Jan Rękorajski                                 | PLD/Linux
> SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
> baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
> baggins<at>pld-linux.org
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list