On 03.11.2014 22:59, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:

seems rpm 4.5.15 creates rpms that rpm 4.5 is unable to install.

Why are you still using rpm-4.5? Presumably yopu mean 5.4.15.
no. i mean 4.5

there are several reasons:

i use 4.5 because in 5.4 this does not work:

$ rpm -q $JOB_NAME-*-*.build$BUILD_NUMBER
i.e:
$ rpm -q ftask-*-*.build36
ftask-1.0-4.0.svn56721.build36.noarch

and i need it for automatics.

secondly, /var/lib/rpm size is ENOURMOUS comparing to what rpm 4.5 had:

4.5:
# du -s /var/lib/rpm
33M     /var/lib/rpm

5.4.x:
# du -s /var/lib/rpm
347M    /var/lib/rpm

(not same packages installed, but you'll get the idea)
this sounds soo familiar already. something like payload not padded, containing 
random memory etc...

Executing rpm --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
error: jenkins-1.580.1-1.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA1 signature: BAD, key ID 
403fdcd0
error: jenkins-1.580.1-1.noarch.rpm cannot be installed
error: jenkins-plugin-maven-1.580.1-1.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA1 signature: 
BAD, key ID 403fdcd0
error: jenkins-plugin-maven-1.580.1-1.noarch.rpm cannot be installed

those rpms ARE NOT signed. raw what rpmbuild wrote.

rpm used in build machine:
$ rpmbuild --version
rpmbuild (RPM) 5.4.15

$ rpm -q rpm-build
rpm-build-5.4.15-1.i686


rpm used in target machine:
# rpm --version
RPM version 4.5

# rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.5-70.i686

i've placed the offending rpm's here:
http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/rpm5/
(filenames you already know in case mod_dirlisting is not working)

The RSA v4 keyid is not correctly implementedin rpm-4.5. Use DSA or go fix 
rpm-4.5.
baggins: we probably should revert it then.


All packages produced by rpmbuild-5.4.15 are signed automatically. Been that way
for several years.
yep. that's what i recalled problem being familiar.
73 de Jeff


--
glen

_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en

Reply via email to