On 25. 01. 21 15:49, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 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?
Oh my. Can we please re-sign the affected packages without rebuilding them: If
that's not possible, I can rebuild Python 3.9 to unblock the mock bootstrap issue.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok