Chuck Anderson (c...@wpi.edu) said:
The infrastructure should either delete and regenerate drpms after the
rpm signatures have changed or they should use the code fragment from
https://fedorahosted.org/koji/ticket/38#comment:3 to attach rpm
signatures to deltarpms.
That's *really* hard,
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Chuck Anderson (c...@wpi.edu) said:
The infrastructure should either delete and regenerate drpms after the
rpm signatures have changed or they should use the code fragment from
https://fedorahosted.org/koji/ticket/38#comment:3 to attach rpm
Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
That's *really* hard, as there's not any state to track when packages
have been signed out from under the prior delta rpms.
The simplest solution would be to just nuke the old ones by hand.
when they are signed? or nuke them in createrepo?
When
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
That's *really* hard, as there's not any state to track when packages
have been signed out from under the prior delta rpms.
The simplest solution would be to just nuke the old ones by hand.
when they
As stated by Jonathan Dieter in the bug below, deltarpms are mucking
up rawhide updates right now because the drpms were created before the
packages were signed, and the signed versions don't match the deltarpm
reconstructed versions. For me at least, this is causing a problem
because I'm not
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 06:12:12PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
As stated by Jonathan Dieter in the bug below, deltarpms are mucking
up rawhide updates right now because the drpms were created before the
packages were signed, and the signed versions don't match the deltarpm
reconstructed
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Chuck Anderson wrote:
As stated by Jonathan Dieter in the bug below, deltarpms are mucking
up rawhide updates right now because the drpms were created before the
packages were signed, and the signed versions don't match the deltarpm
reconstructed versions. For me at
-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: deltarpms not working since rawhide was signed
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 06:12:12PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
As stated by Jonathan Dieter in the bug below, deltarpms are mucking
up rawhide updates right now because the drpms were created before the
packages were
Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com www.dell.com/linux
-Original Message-
From: Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:02:35
To: fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: deltarpms not working since rawhide was signed
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:15:51PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Matt Domsch wrote:
I'm seeing the metalink problem and will investigate the cause.
I haven't actually sat down and looked at this yet, is it completely a
metalink problem or are there two different things
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:15:51PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Matt Domsch wrote:
I'm seeing the metalink problem and will investigate the cause.
I haven't actually sat down and looked at this yet, is it completely a
metalink problem or are there two different things
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:44:50PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
If you see me monkey with u-m-d-l on bapp1, that's what I'm trying to
figure out...
Found it...
update-master-directory-list was trying to be smart and failed. If it
saw that a directory's ctime hadn't changed, it skipped it and
12 matches
Mail list logo
