Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:33:47 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20130723223346.GA17088@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CANEZrP2GvgZP_1z3EoSs3p+db7tZB6JfEVAewLpGE5eRpGgR3w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2GvgZP_1z3EoSs3p+db7tZB6JfEVAewLpGE5eRpGgR3w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter
Precedence: list

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