On 25. 01. 21 16:32, Miro Hrončok wrote:
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.
I've been told that it is not (easily) possible, so a new build is running now.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok