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 :)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha