On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Sylvain Veyrié
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thibaut VARENE a écrit :
>> I'm tagging this as "important". It's indeed an unwanted behaviour,
> Yeah, that's true. But I thought the severity applies to the package itself.
Yeah, it's just that the conditions to trigger this bug are
(hopefully) unlikely to happen on most users' setups.
>> Anyway, I believe that the patch I proposed for #482643 might be an
>> answer to that problem as well. Unfortunately nobody ever tried to
>> test it for now. It's likely gonna need an addtional check ("is the
>> record db empty") to fully address your bugreport.
>
> OK, I'll try to find time to test your patch on the present bug, if it does
> not need the additional check you mentionned. Unfortunately, I don't think I
> will get enough to set up a crash test environment to reproduce #482643 and
> test the patch.
I'm pretty sure the additional test will be needed, unless the new
database can indeed not be created and thus after reboot only the old
one is present.
Thanks for testing it anyway
--
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/
