Bug 2316785
| Summary: | f41 rpm -i ~/systemd-256.6-1.fc41.src.rpm fails | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Barry Scott <barry> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Michal Domonkos <mdomonko> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 41 | CC: | igor.raits, mdomonko, packaging-team-maint, pmatilai |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | rpm-4.20.1-1.fc42 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-03-20 00:15:38 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: | |||
|
Description
Barry Scott
2024-10-06 11:34:30 UTC
For reference, quoting Panu's reply from a related thread on fedora-devel [1]: > There's several things wrong in here. > > 1) The packaging around ima-evm-utils has changed recently it seems: the > library part was split to -libs subpackage which is good, but previously > since rpm-sign-libs dependency dragged the main package in, it's > installed on a lot of systems. And now the main ima-evm-utils added a > dependency on rpm-plugin-ima which has all manner of implications that > just having some tools or libraries installed does not, and should not > have. That dependency will need to be removed or further split off to > something people wont get installed by default. > > the library part was split to a -libs subpackage which is good, bu > 1) ima-evm-utils recently added a dependency on rpm-plugin-ima, and this > seems wrong because having the plugin installed implies all manner of > things that having ima-evm-utils does not. The > > 2) IMA signature don't make any sense on src.rpm files - so Fedora > shouldn't be signing them, and rpm shouldn't let them > > 3) Even if the assertions in 2 fail and you somehow end up with an > src.rpm with IMA signatures on it, rpm should not barf up on it like this. > > There's a bug for 2-3 at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316785, I'll need to file > another to sort the ima-evm-utils packaging. > > Thanks for reporting! > > - Panu - [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Y76II2DHPEWKAKLTBYOGGURHHHUSIHSL/ FEDORA-2025-7f959f01d8 (rpm-4.20.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f959f01d8 FEDORA-2025-7f959f01d8 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-7f959f01d8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f959f01d8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2025-7f959f01d8 (rpm-4.20.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |