From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V1l9X-0000ot-2J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:33:55 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1V1l9V-0004Wd-BG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:33:55 +0000 Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 18B7E33CDD8; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:33:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:33:47 +0200 From: Pieter Wuille To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20130723223346.GA17088@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list X-Headers-End: 1V1l9V-0004Wd-BG Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:33:55 -0000 On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > The trigger for this is the discovery that Debian bitcoind's got split out > of the consensus some time in April, for reasons that nobody yet figured > out but is presumably related to a patch (eg it uses system leveldb). Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, as far as I know there is no reason to assume the reported problem (comment on #2726) is: 1) a fork (it's an indeterministic and avoidable database corruption, it seems) 2) related to leveldb 3) reproducible by more than one person 4) debian's fault. That said, I think reaching out to packagers to educate them about the risks is a good idea - but let's not blame people before we understand our own problems. -- Pieter