This shouldn't have been accepted sorry, darix and I talked about this when you first submitted it but we both forgot to submit a comment here. Basically the issue is that the author themselves has said they're unsure this is safe:
Please verify that this is the safe and correct thing to do before
merging this. Verify e.g. that it doesn't allow breaking history
integrity or something like it. As I don't know enough to understand
what this change entails.
And in addition, upstream is also not sure if they want to take this patch. Given that the worst case here is some kind of database corruption (and it seems the patch is working around a completely different kind of corruption caused by LC_COLLATE and LC_LOCALE being changed in some specific scenarios) it makes me quite nervous to push this to Tumbleweed.
If upstream accepts the patch, I'd understand backporting it, but as-is this seems quite risky. If we have issues with LC_LOCALE and LC_COLLATE with the package we should fix those separately.
@cyphar, @darix: review reminder
This shouldn't have been accepted sorry, darix and I talked about this when you first submitted it but we both forgot to submit a comment here. Basically the issue is that the author themselves has said they're unsure this is safe:
And in addition, upstream is also not sure if they want to take this patch. Given that the worst case here is some kind of database corruption (and it seems the patch is working around a completely different kind of corruption caused by LC_COLLATE and LC_LOCALE being changed in some specific scenarios) it makes me quite nervous to push this to Tumbleweed.
If upstream accepts the patch, I'd understand backporting it, but as-is this seems quite risky. If we have issues with LC_LOCALE and LC_COLLATE with the package we should fix those separately.