On 19/03/15 05:56, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Control: tags 780555 +upstream > > Hallo, > * Carlos Maddela [Mon, Mar 16 2015, 12:21:54PM]: > >> Using apt-cacher-ng to cache RPMs from Fedora Rawhide eventually results >> in packages that cannot be verified, because it would seem that Fedora >> allows them to be rebuilt without incrementing the version number. >> >> I tried fixing this problem by marking them as volatile with the >> VfilePatternEx option: >> >> /development/rawhide/.* >> >> However, this fails to achieve anything, since the default SPfilePattern >> includes all RPMs and this option overrides any VfilePattern option. >> >> Not completely understading why the default SPfilePattern must include >> all RPMs, I have provided a possible solution which allows for > It's a bug. It was intended to match only .gpg files but the final > bracket is misplaced. > > Even with that small fix the SPfilePattern checking implementation > doesn't allow to make files like foo.rpm.gpg considered volatile, so I > will add your patch soon, probably with minor modifications after > review/check for side effects. Thanks! > > But the last patch with extra mirrors is something I do not fully agree > with. The backends files are generated semi-automatically (see special > make targets) and Fedora mirror list is fed from > https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist . Some of the sites you > added are already in the list that I compiled a couple of weeks ago but > not all; and they are also not on the publiclist page. Could you reveal > the source of that mirror urls? > > Kind Regards, > Eduard. > Those mirrors were automatically generated by the metalink line in the standard fedora-repos-rawhide package, which was https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=rawhide&arch=$basearch. I ended up disabling the metalink feature, because just when you thought you had all mirrors covered, a new one would be chosen.
I've been using an unpatched version of apt-cacher-ng for the past couple of days, but haven't been able to reproduce the bug again. None of the RPMs that I have cached have been rebuilt with the same version number. It just seems odd to me that this would be standard practice for Fedora, but I could have sworn that that was what was happening when I checked the HTTP headers with curl. I'll keep monitoring to see if this really is a problem. Thanks, Carlos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
