[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The drawback is that any actual patch failures will just be silently
>> corrected without indicating a problem.
>
> I misunderstand because this with the previous sentence seems to be
> opposite statements. I am sorry that I am not understanding here on
> this very small point.
>
> If something that should not be failing is failing then I don't like
> to see it be completely silent. Okay to be silent in the normal
> non-verbose mode. But when verbose is active I think errors that
> should not happen but did fail be reported that they did fail even
> though the workaround corrects it immediately. Because I have seen
> times when those impossible situations did arise and having that
> information during debugging was invaluable. And sometimes in my own
> programs I have later created that impossible situation breaking the
> feature permanently. The message informing me of it let me know about
> the problem easily when otherwise I would have been silently
> correcting and losing the benefit of the feature.
In verbose mode it gives a message at the time of patching but that
probably scrolls by unseen unless you look for it. It doesn't get
added to the error list that gets repeated at the end and causes
debmirror to exit with an error. That's what I ment.
The case should never happen unless the patch files are corrupted on
the master archive, in which case both debmirror and apt-get will
resort to the full file. No harm done. Or you run out of space at
exactly that moment, but that you will notice.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
