Re: Failed Delta RPMs observed in repo

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 09:36 -0500, John Mellor wrote:
> Question for the repo managers,
> 
> Why do I sometimes see invalid checksums for drpm downloads?  E.g:
> This excerpt from the update this morning:
> 
> > /var/cache/dnf/updates-7fc4c739b3909d9f/packages/selinux-policy-
> > targeted-3.14.4-46.fc31_3.14.4-47.fc31.noarch.drpm: md5 mismatch of
> > result
> > Some packages were not downloaded. Retrying.
> > selinux-policy-targeted-3.14.4-47.fc31.noarch.r  14 MB/s |  13
> > MB     00:00 
> 
> It almost always causes the total download size to be larger than any
> savings from using the drpm format:
> 
> > Failed Delta RPMs increased 41.3 MB of updates to 43.3 MB (-4.1%
> > wasted)
> > 
> 
> Is this a repo bug?  

This is not a repo bug, but rather a (small) bug in how selinux-policy-
targeted is packaged.  A drpm is assembled by taking the parts of the
old installed rpm that haven't changed from the local system and then
only downloading the parts that have changed.

The problem is that a file in selinux-policy-targeted changes *after*
it's installed, but dnf doesn't detect that the old installed rpm has
changed until after downloading and attempting to apply the drpm.

As you can see on my local system, there are four files that have
changed after selinux-policy-targeted was installed:
$ sudo rpm -V selinux-policy-targeted
S.5....T.  c /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/files/file_contexts.local
..5....T.    /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/commit_num
S.5....T.    /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/file_contexts
.......T.    /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/homedir_template
S.5....T.    /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/policy.kern
.M.......  g /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/policy.linked
.......T.    /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/seusers
.......T.    /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/users_extra

The file in /etc is marked as a config file, so won't cause the
deltarpm to fail, but the changes to the other three will.  Arguably,
any files that may change on the local system should be marked as
config files.

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux