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/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource-1.14.10-1.fc34.aarch64.rpm > >>>>> 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/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource-1.14.10-1.fc34.aarch64.rpm: > >>>>> 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? Pavel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
