From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 21 06:50:06 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DA9106566C for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:50:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6097E8FC08 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:50:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2L6o6Cx085241 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:50:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o2L6o6Ih085240; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:50:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:50:06 GMT Message-Id: <201003210650.o2L6o6Ih085240@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Garrett Cooper Cc: Subject: Re: bin/139606: [patch] pkg_add(1) coredumps silently on atlantis symlink X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Garrett Cooper List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:50:06 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/139606; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Garrett Cooper To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, phk@critter.freebsd.dk Cc: Subject: Re: bin/139606: [patch] pkg_add(1) coredumps silently on atlantis symlink Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:44:06 -0700 Hi PHK, The goals of this change are good and while this does do a better job than the other proposed change (bin/136419), there's one solitary problem: fexists is used all over the pkg_install code and minus the occasional corner case it's been relatively glitch free. Changing this code to use stat(2) instead of lstat(2) may have some unexpected consequences -- it would probably just be a wiser idea to 1) leave the code alone with the issue documented or 2) implement stat(2) in that section of code, because we know it's a problem section of code that needs to be resolved. Not doing this will result in potential regressive churn if it hasn't been adequately tested with a fine tooth comb. Thanks, -Garrett