Bug 1126946

Summary: [rpm] unable to install sgi-fonts-1.0-1
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Joachim Frieben <jfrieben>
Component: rpmAssignee: Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 21CC: ffesti, jzeleny, novyjindrich, packaging-team-maint, pknirsch, pmatilai
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-08-12 08:16:13 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
SGI fonts package none

Description Joachim Frieben 2014-08-05 16:12:43 UTC
Created attachment 924256 [details]
SGI fonts package

Description of problem:
After upgrading to Fedora 21, rpm refuses to install sgi-fonts-1.0-1.noarch.rpm.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.11.90-0.git12844.5.fc21

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpm -Uhv sgi-fonts-1.0-1.noarch.rpm

Actual results:
error: unpacking of archive failed: cpio: Archive file not in header
error: sgi-fonts-1.0-1.noarch: install failed

Expected results:
Package installs as expected.

Additional info:
It was possible to install sgi-fonts-1.0-1.noarch.rpm for the last 15 years on Red Hat/Fedora without a problem including the current release Fedora 20 :o/

Comment 1 Panu Matilainen 2014-08-06 08:15:57 UTC
Might be related to/same as bug 1122004, the package is truly ancient (built with rpm 3.0.3) and does not have compressed filelist, just like 1122004 was built with newer rpm but --nodirtokens.

In any case, its a regression that needs fixing. Florian?

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2014-08-12 08:16:13 UTC
Closer inspection reveals this is indeed a duplicate of 1122004, compatibility with truly ancient package payloads got broken in 4.12 (more or less intentionally, that these packages still exist is kind of surprising)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1122004 ***