clemens fischer wrote: > Gaetan Bisson wrote: > >> If that's easy then it shouldn't be too hard for you to open a bug >> report on the tracker and submit a patch. > > Then what component does the actual extracting? Is it libfetch? That > would be an upstream moving target, because it comes from netbsd. Do > you guys accept patches against libfetch in this case? Seems libarchive is used to handle packages. pacman.git lib/libalpm/add.c::perform_extraction() is hard to understand. It should be the place the warning I cited came from. If that is the case, ENOSPC wasn't the cause of it. I don't understand two things: - where exactly are files extracted to? If they go to /, how would people use pacman when root is mounted ro (in the case of eg. /.INSTALL)? If I can freely determine where files go via archive_entry_set_pathname(), where's the problem in using the value of TMPDIR as a prefix and move the file into its final position when libalpm declares the transaction ok? - the file causing the warning was ".INSTALL". It contains upgrade/install scriptlets. How can a problem extracting an important file like this be considered a warning? clemens
