On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > >>> With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: > > >>> > > >>> $ rpm -qip https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource-1.14.10-1.fc34.aarch64.rpm > > >>> error: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6iU66n: signature hdr data: BAD, no. of bytes(88084) out of range > > >>> error: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource-1.14.10-1.fc34.aarch64.rpm: not an rpm package (or package manifest) > > >>> > > >>> Is this expected? > > >>> > > >> > > >> Certainly not. > > >> > > >>> It seems that rpm-4.16.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64 can parse the RPM just fine. > > >>> But rpm-4.14.3-4.el8.x86_64 does not like it, either. > > >> > > >> Based on a quick random sampling, this would appear to be a very recent > > >> thing, the only affected packages I could find (which doesn't mean > > >> others couldn't exist) were built in the last few days, such as the > > >> above and these: > > >> > > >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/n/net-snmp-debugsource-5.9-4.fc34.aarch64.rpm > > >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/n/NetworkManager-debugsource-1.30.0-0.2.fc34.aarch64.rpm > > >> > > >> ...which were all built on Jan 18th. The only recent change to rpm is > > >> the DWARF-5 support but based on changelogs that seems to have landed > > >> the day after, so I dunno. > > (snip) > > > > Is it possible that this was triggered by switching on signed RPM contents? > > > If I understand the implementation correctly, it messes with the RPM headers. > > > > Oh, I wasn't aware the file signing proposal had been approved, much > > less enabled. I thought I raised "some objections" on the enablement of > > the feature from rpm maintainer perspective. > > It has *not* been approved (yet). Which is why I grumbled about > enabling the signing in production infra during yesterday's FESCo > meeting. Oh, I didn't fully understand your comment at the time. I automatically assumed that "enabled in production" only means that the *code* is there, i.e. that the version of rpm has been updated in preparation. Actually enabling this while the proposal is being discussed is definitely NOT OK. It makes mockery of the whole Change process and deliberation on fedora-devel and the fesco ticket. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
