Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Monday, January 25, 2021 7:50:08 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote: >> Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >> On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >> >> On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> >>> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >> >> >>>> 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? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> 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. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Considering that direct upgrades from F32 to F34 (n to n+2) are supposed to >> >> >>>> be supported, this sounds like a blocker to me. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> openQA N+2 upgrade tests have indeed been running into this for a few >> >> >>> days: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/759545#step/upgrade_run/20 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I had been meaning to dig into it a bit more before filing a bug. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Folks, when rpm starts spitting errors like that, don't think, just file >> >> >> a bug. It's very, very very very unlikely that it's "ok" in any >> >> >> imaginable meaning. >> >> > >> >> > It's not that I thought it was "OK", it's just that these days I tend >> >> > to like filing a bug report with detailed cause analysis and stuff all >> >> > wrapped up :) >> >> >> >> And that is certainly appreciated! >> >> >> >> But if there's even a wiff of a package generational bug, it's better to >> >> act first and think later because those things are not entirely unlike a >> >> virus outbreak, those buggers spread fast on every sneeze and stopping >> >> it early is the key to damage control :D >> > >> > I'm curious how are we going to fix this? Mock started to complain now that it >> > is not even able to install rawhide bootstrap chroot on F32: >> > error: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap-1611584804.803151/root/var/cache/dnf/fedora-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/python3-libs-3.9.1-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm: signature hdr data: BAD, no. of bytes(384156) out of range >> > >> > Does it imply rebuild of all affected packages, including Python3.9? >> >> No, I've been seeing this issue for the past week and thanks to Fabio >> I've been able to solve it by running >> mock -r /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg --clean --scrub=all > > Cleaning caches would make sense if there was newer variant of that package in > the repository. But in this case it wasn't. Rebuild was really needed to fix > the bootstrap installation. > > Fortunately, according to Miro Hrončok, this was (Miro already rebuilt the > package, and it is going to be added in the next compose) the only "broken" > package affecting bootstrap installation so nothing else needs an immediate > rebuild now. > > As I was informed, there is upcoming mass rebuild, so any residual packages would > be fixed automatically very soon (in case anyone wants to have mock bootstrap > disabled for any reason). > > What is IMO guaranteed to work-around this issue is to use > mock --use-bootstrap-image feature. Interesting, because I had *exactly* the same issue yesterday evening and using bootstrap image did not fix the issue. However, cleaning up every *did*, albeit I was on a Fedora 33 host and not on 32. Cheers, Dan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
