Bug 394405 – www-client/chromium-15.0.874.121 fails any downloads saved in NTFS partition

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED UPSTREAM

[Description Egor Y. Egorov 2011-12-12 02:25:00 UTC]

See URL, please. The patch there: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/content/browser/download/base_file.cc?r1=108380&r2=108379&pathrev=108380 . This works for me. Tested on multiple systems. Add this patch to the main tree, please.
Thank you.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. emerge =www-client/chromium-15.0.874.121
2. Run it and go to any website
3. Download any file and specify the path to the NTFS-partition
Actual Results:  
The download is interrupted at the end.

Expected Results:  
The download is complete.

[Comment 1 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. (RETIRED) 2011-12-12 11:59:24 UTC]

Confirmed based on upstream report.

I'm not that enthusiastic about merging any patches that upstream doesn't merge. It's simple and I'm pretty sure it works, it can be just confusing to backport a non-distro-specific fix.

Have you asked upstream to merge the patch to relevant branches? Is chromium-16.x affected by this bug? How about chromium-17.x?

[Comment 2 Egor Y. Egorov 2011-12-13 02:47:02 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed based on upstream report.
> 
> I'm not that enthusiastic about merging any patches that upstream doesn't
> merge. It's simple and I'm pretty sure it works, it can be just confusing to
> backport a non-distro-specific fix.

I understand your point, but www-client/chromium-15.0.874.121 marked as stable. 

> Have you asked upstream to merge the patch to relevant branches? Is
> chromium-16.x affected by this bug? How about chromium-17.x?

No. I have neither the time nor the desire to communicate with upstream. I'm sorry.
For myself, I had already decided the issue.

[Comment 3 Egor Y. Egorov 2011-12-14 13:59:37 UTC]

www-client/chromium-16.0.912.63 affected this bug too.

[Comment 4 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. (RETIRED) 2011-12-14 14:13:42 UTC]

(In reply to comment #2)
> No. I have neither the time nor the desire to communicate with upstream. I'm
> sorry.
> For myself, I had already decided the issue.

There's nothing more Gentoo maintainers are going to do here. Please feel free to convince upstream to do a backport.

The problem with backporting fixes for non-distro-specific problems like this is that it creates a confusion: Chrome 16.x and vanilla Chromium is affected by the bug, while modified one wouldn't be. Then people with patched browser comment on bugs that they can't reproduce using their version, but don't mention the used patches.

Also note that Chrome has a very short release cycle.