Re: [Change Request] Update xz on the builders
On 08/19/2009 08:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On 08/19/2009 07:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> The host xz wouldn't be used to produce any rpms, the rpm inside the >> chroot would. Does this come into play when initing the buildroot? >> > You're right, this wouldn't come into play unless it's a decompression > bug. And if that's so it would generate an error from the buildsystem > while trying to create the buildroot instead of a corrupted payload in > the built rpms. So not as severe. I'm checking to be sure it isn't a > decompression bug now. > Confirmed -- the compressor is the issue here, not the decompressor. So we don't need to update the builders at this time. Since rawhide is the only release building with xz payloads we don't need to worry about buildroot overrides either. It *is* possible that some of the packages built before this xz package was put into the buildroot are corrupt:: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=127510 (build finished at 2009-08-17 10:32:19) I don't know if this is something releng wants to check for. -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: [Change Request] Update xz on the builders
On 08/19/2009 07:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Aug 19, 2009, at 18:36, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> A data corruption bug was found in the current xz package for certain >> files. The xz package was updated to a snapshot in Fedora and EPEL. >> We'd like to update the builders with the new xz to make sure we aren't >> producing packages with corrupted payloads. >> >> The corruption bug report is here: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517806 >> >> which includes confirmation that it fixes the bug and jnovy's >> recommendation to update the buildsystem. >> >> The EPEL-5 update is here: >> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-4.999.8-0.10.beta.20090817git.el5 >> >> >> Can I get two +1's for this? >> > > The host xz wouldn't be used to produce any rpms, the rpm inside the > chroot would. Does this come into play when initing the buildroot? > You're right, this wouldn't come into play unless it's a decompression bug. And if that's so it would generate an error from the buildsystem while trying to create the buildroot instead of a corrupted payload in the built rpms. So not as severe. I'm checking to be sure it isn't a decompression bug now. -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: [Change Request] Update xz on the builders
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > A data corruption bug was found in the current xz package for certain > files. The xz package was updated to a snapshot in Fedora and EPEL. > We'd like to update the builders with the new xz to make sure we aren't > producing packages with corrupted payloads. > > The corruption bug report is here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517806 > > which includes confirmation that it fixes the bug and jnovy's > recommendation to update the buildsystem. > > The EPEL-5 update is here: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-4.999.8-0.10.beta.20090817git.el5 > > Can I get two +1's for this? > +1 from me. -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: [Change Request] Update xz on the builders
On Aug 19, 2009, at 18:36, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: A data corruption bug was found in the current xz package for certain files. The xz package was updated to a snapshot in Fedora and EPEL. We'd like to update the builders with the new xz to make sure we aren't producing packages with corrupted payloads. The corruption bug report is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517806 which includes confirmation that it fixes the bug and jnovy's recommendation to update the buildsystem. The EPEL-5 update is here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-4.999.8-0.10.beta.20090817git.el5 Can I get two +1's for this? The host xz wouldn't be used to produce any rpms, the rpm inside the chroot would. Does this come into play when initing the buildroot? -- Jes ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: [Change Request] Update xz on the builders
On Wednesday 19 August 2009 08:36:21 pm Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > A data corruption bug was found in the current xz package for certain > files. The xz package was updated to a snapshot in Fedora and EPEL. > We'd like to update the builders with the new xz to make sure we aren't > producing packages with corrupted payloads. > > The corruption bug report is here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517806 > > which includes confirmation that it fixes the bug and jnovy's > recommendation to update the buildsystem. > > The EPEL-5 update is here: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-4.999.8-0.10.beta.20090817git.el >5 > > Can I get two +1's for this? > > -Toshio +1 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
[Change Request] Update xz on the builders
A data corruption bug was found in the current xz package for certain files. The xz package was updated to a snapshot in Fedora and EPEL. We'd like to update the builders with the new xz to make sure we aren't producing packages with corrupted payloads. The corruption bug report is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517806 which includes confirmation that it fixes the bug and jnovy's recommendation to update the buildsystem. The EPEL-5 update is here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-4.999.8-0.10.beta.20090817git.el5 Can I get two +1's for this? -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
