On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> The i686 [community] database on gerolde is currently a copy of the
> x86_64 database. *It is correct on sigurd. *Yay for the "Architecture"
> option in pacman.conf that caused many people to notice this!
>
> Did someone adjust the rsync job recently? *It is just the database that
> is affected. *All the package (symlinks) are still for the i686 version.

I did...uh oh. Nothing like this should have been affected though,
quite odd? I'm going to bed but /arch/cron-jobs/community-sync or
something like that, runs via the community user on gerolde now.

-Dan

Old "non-bugs" strike again! Thanks for finding it, Allan, and if
anyone has a samba bugzilla account and would like to reopen that bug
with our log, that would be great.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977
http://paste.pocoo.org/show/533643/

-Dan

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> The i686 [community] database on gerolde is currently a copy of the
>> x86_64 database. *It is correct on sigurd. *Yay for the "Architecture"
>> option in pacman.conf that caused many people to notice this!
>>
>> Did someone adjust the rsync job recently? *It is just the database that
>> is affected. *All the package (symlinks) are still for the i686 version.
>
> I did...uh oh. Nothing like this should have been affected though,
> quite odd? I'm going to bed but /arch/cron-jobs/community-sync or
> something like that, runs via the community user on gerolde now.
>
> -Dan

On 12/01/12 15:54, Dan McGee wrote:
> Old "non-bugs" strike again! Thanks for finding it, Allan, and if
> anyone has a samba bugzilla account and would like to reopen that bug
> with our log, that would be great.
>
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977
> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/533643/
>

It probably is a non-bug given it is documented...

This is in "man rsync" under --delay-updates:

Note also that you should not use an absolute path to --partial-dir
unless (1) there is no chance of any of the files in the transfer having
the same name (since all the updated files will be put into a
single directory if the path is absolute)

Allan