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.
- Panu -