Bug 511910
| Summary: | apt-get unable to handle sha256 rpm checksums | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ralf Corsepius <rc040203> | ||||
| Component: | apt | Assignee: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||
| Version: | 11 | CC: | axel.thimm, pmatilai | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | 0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc11 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-11-24 07:42:47 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | 512518 | ||||||
| Bug Blocks: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Ralf Corsepius
2009-07-15 15:42:27 UTC
Maybe bug #495633 is a duplicate of this one (or vice versa)? (In reply to comment #1) > Maybe bug #495633 is a duplicate of this one (or vice versa)? Maybe, but md5sums errors can originate from various issues, esp. when taking into account the unstability and unreliability of Fedora's mirror. My case: # diff -s /var/cache/apt/archives/partial/autoconf-2.63-2.fc11.noarch.rpm.FAILED /var/ftp/pub/linux/mirrors/download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/11/Everything/i386/os/Packages/autoconf-2.63-2.fc11.noarch.rpm Files /var/cache/apt/archives/partial/autoconf-2.63-2.fc11.noarch.rpm.FAILED and /var/ftp/pub/linux/mirrors/download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/11/Everything/i386/os/Packages/autoconf-2.63-2.fc11.noarch.rpm are identical # rpm -qip /var/cache/apt/archives/partial/autoconf-2.63-2.fc11.noarch.rpm.FAILED Name : autoconf Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.63 Vendor: Fedora Project Release : 2.fc11 Build Date: Tue 24 Feb 2009 05:00:07 AM CET Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: x86-6.fedora.phx.redhat.com Group : Development/Tools Source RPM: autoconf-2.63-2.fc11.src.rpm Size : 2605325 License: GPLv2+ and GFDL Signature : RSA/8, Tue 10 Mar 2009 05:53:47 AM CET, Key ID 1dc5c758d22e77f2 Packager : Fedora Project I had a short look into apt's source code. Unless I am missing something, apt indeed seems to lack support for sha256 checksums, rendering apt and all the FC11 + 3rd party apt-configs more or less worthless. Oh ... yeah, apt has no chance of working with F >= 11 repositories due to sha256 checksum use in the repodata. As MD5 and SHA1 are largely hardwired into the guts of libapt-pkg, fixing that sanely would require a major surgery. Given the sorry state apt has constantly been lately (several Fedora releases), maybe it's time to face the facts and pull the life-support plug on it. (In reply to comment #4) > Oh ... yeah, apt has no chance of working with F >= 11 repositories due to > sha256 checksum use in the repodata. As MD5 and SHA1 are largely hardwired into > the guts of libapt-pkg, fixing that sanely would require a major surgery. That's the same conclusion, I came to. > Given the sorry state apt has constantly been lately (several Fedora releases), > maybe it's time to face the facts and pull the life-support plug on it. Well, I'd rather not do so, because despite all the years yum is around, yum still occassionally is broken rsp. messes up installations, leaving apt as handy alternative to escape such situations. [FWIW: Recently having encountered such a situation on FC11 (python-2.5->python-2.6 has killed yum during an FC10->FC11 upgrade) had been the reason which caused me to give apt a try after not having used apt for quite a while.] That said, I'd rather see apt fixed or a work around be enabled. I don't recall the details, but didn't apt have a global option to ignore checksums? (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Oh ... yeah, apt has no chance of working with F >= 11 repositories due to > > sha256 checksum use in the repodata. As MD5 and SHA1 are largely hardwired into > > the guts of libapt-pkg, fixing that sanely would require a major surgery. > That's the same conclusion, I came to. FWIW: I've implemented a hack to apt-rpm, which gets sha256 working again. Unfortunately, this hack breaks apt's API ... Created attachment 362369 [details]
Support for SHA256 checksums
Attached patch adds support for SHA256 checksums. With this patch apt works under both Fedora10 (sha1) and Fedora11 (sha256).
apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc12 apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc11 apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-0.git416.5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |