On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:58:09PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> I've been told that it is not (easily) possible, so a new build is running
> now.
Yeah, It may be possible, but not super easy. ;(
Hopefully the mass rebuild will fix up any of these left.
Additionally, there's a rpm version
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> On Monday, January 25, 2021 7:50:08 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote:
>> Pavel Raiskup writes:
>>
>> > 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
On Monday, January 25, 2021 7:50:08 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
>
> > 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
Hi Pavle,
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> 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
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 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
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:
>
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
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
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:41:30PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 09:37:15AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 22. 01. 21 0:05, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > We can disable it before the mass
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 22. 01. 21 15:43, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > I tried to explain this at the meeting, but I guess I was too terse.
> > > >
> > > > First, let me say that I (and I am pretty sure everyone involved) was
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 09:37:15AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 22. 01. 21 0:05, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > We can disable it before the mass rebuild if desired easily enough.
> >
> > No pitchforks and torches, but do I read it
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:05:15PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> I don't think this is a "mockery" of the change process, I think it's a
> case where early testing caught issues before the item landed.
>
> Anyhow, I accept full blame, please send your pitchforks and torches my
> way...
I
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 22. 01. 21 0:05, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > We can disable it before the mass rebuild if desired easily enough.
>
> No pitchforks and torches, but do I read it correctly that it has not been
> disabled yet? If that's the case, could
On 22. 01. 21 15:43, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I tried to explain this at the meeting, but I guess I was too terse.
First, let me say that I (and I am pretty sure everyone involved) was
unaware of the rpm bug. I hope Patrick will chime in, by my
understanding is that rpm specs said
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:41:52PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 00:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:04:42PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21,
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 00:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:04:42PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 1/21/21 1:27
On 22. 01. 21 0:05, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We can disable it before the mass rebuild if desired easily enough.
No pitchforks and torches, but do I read it correctly that it has not been
disabled yet? If that's the case, could you please do so?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC:
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
On 1/21/21 10:04 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 1/21/21
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:24:49PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
> > Oh, I didn't fully understand your comment at the time. I automatically
> > assumed
> > that "enabled in production" only means that the *code* is there, i.e. that
> > the
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:04:42PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at
On 1/21/21 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
That's just not acceptable.
Which means that signed RPM contents need to be postponed at least
until all supported Fedora releases have an RPM version that can read
those files.
I'm not sure what Fedora's policy on this is, but as an administrator
with
Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
> Oh, I didn't fully understand your comment at the time. I automatically
> assumed
> that "enabled in production" only means that the *code* is there, i.e. that
> the version of rpm has been updated in preparation. Actually enabling this
>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> > On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer
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
> >
On 1/21/21 1:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Panu Matilainen:
And with that, looking at the error and the behavior pattern, it's
almost certainly down to this commit missing from older releases:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/486579912381ede82172dc6d0ff3941a6d0536b5
If
* Panu Matilainen:
> And with that, looking at the error and the behavior pattern, it's
> almost certainly down to this commit missing from older releases:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/486579912381ede82172dc6d0ff3941a6d0536b5
If it's just that, can it be backported
On 21. 01. 21 12:39, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error:
$ rpm -qip
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error:
> >>>
> >>> $ rpm
On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error:
$ rpm -qip
* Panu Matilainen:
>> 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.
>
> Based on a quick random sampling, this would appear to be a very
> recent thing, the only affected packages I could find (which doesn't
> mean
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error:
> >
> > $ rpm -qip
> >
On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, 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:
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
