[CentOS-mirror] Yum 3.2.8-9 from msync-dvd.centos.org wrong?
Brandon Davidson
brandond at uoregon.eduTue Jul 22 01:36:03 UTC 2008
- Previous message: [CentOS-mirror] Yum 3.2.8-9 from msync-dvd.centos.org wrong?
- Next message: [CentOS-mirror] Yum 3.2.8-9 from msync-dvd.centos.org wrong?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Johnny, Johnny Hughes wrote: > i say this because, we only made ONE file (they were noarch files) ... > they were copied to one place and hard linked into the other place. > > then automated -avzH rsyncs were used to copy to other places > > then hardlink.py was run against the repos ... and the x86_64 noarch > files changed, but the i386 ones stayed the same. AFAICT, hardlink.py checks a number of things to determine whether or not files are eligible for hardlinking: * size is the same * size is not zero * file mode is the same * owner user id is the same * owner group id is the same * modified time is the same (unless date hashing is disabled) Depending on how the files were copied, and how the script was run, I could see the script failing to hardlink properly - but not how you could end up with a changed file. It seems like that would have to have happened during the copy or rsync. For forensic purposes, does anyone have a copy of an altered RPM around to diff/bindiff against the proper version? -Brandon -- Brandon Davidson Systems Administrator University of Oregon Neuroinformatics Center (541) 346-2417 brandond at uoregon.edu Key Fingerprint 1F08 A331 78DF 1EFE F645 8AE5 8FBE 4147 E351 E139
- Previous message: [CentOS-mirror] Yum 3.2.8-9 from msync-dvd.centos.org wrong?
- Next message: [CentOS-mirror] Yum 3.2.8-9 from msync-dvd.centos.org wrong?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS-mirror mailing list