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
- Panu -