On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>>>> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>> With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ rpm -qip
>>>>>
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everyth...
>>>>> error: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6iU66n: signature hdr data: BAD, no. of
>>>>> bytes(88084) out of range error:
>>>>>
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everyth...:
>>>>> not an rpm package (or package manifest)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this expected?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that rpm-4.16.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64 can parse the RPM just
fine.
>>>>> But rpm-4.14.3-4.el8.x86_64 does not like it, either.
>>>>
>>>> Considering that direct upgrades from F32 to F34 (n to n+2) are supposed
to
>>>> be supported, this sounds like a blocker to me.
>>>
>>> openQA N+2 upgrade tests have indeed been running into this for a few
>>> days:
>>>
>>>
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/759545#step/upgrade_run/20
>>>
>>> I had been meaning to dig into it a bit more before filing a bug.
>>>
>>
>> Folks, when rpm starts spitting errors like that, don't think, just file
>> a bug. It's very, very very very unlikely that it's "ok" in
any
>> imaginable meaning.
>
> It's not that I thought it was "OK", it's just that these days I
tend
> to like filing a bug report with detailed cause analysis and stuff all
> wrapped up :)
And that is certainly appreciated!
But if there's even a wiff of a package generational bug, it's better to
act first and think later because those things are not entirely unlike a
virus outbreak, those buggers spread fast on every sneeze and stopping
it early is the key to damage control :D
I'm curious how are we going to fix this? Mock started to complain now that it
is not even able to install rawhide bootstrap chroot on F32:
error:
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap-1611584804.803151/root/var/cache/dnf/fedora-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/python3-libs-3.9.1-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm:
signature hdr data: BAD, no. of bytes(384156) out of range
Does it imply rebuild of all affected packages, including Python3.9?
Pavel