Bug 843369

Summary: Upload failed when rhnpushing
Product: [Community] Spacewalk Reporter: Tomáš Kašpárek <tkasparek>
Component: ServerAssignee: Tomas Lestach <tlestach>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact: Red Hat Satellite QA List <satqe-list>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 1.8CC: tkasparek
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-04-10 08:48:18 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1564160    

Description Tomáš Kašpárek 2012-07-26 07:11:35 UTC
Description of problem:
When rhnpushing to my custom channel I got following error:
Uploading failed for /mnt/Packages/o/oxygen-icon-theme-4.8.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
Error: Package with same name already exists on server but contents differ (package recompiled).  Use --force or remove old package before uploading the newer version.
	Diff: [['changelog', {'package_id': 2737, 'id': 206958, 'changelog_data_id': 77211}, ''], ['changelog', {'package_id': 2737, 'id': 206959, 'changelog_data_id': 77213}, ''], ['changelog', {'package_id': 2737, 'id': 206960, 'changelog_data_id': 77212}, ''], ['changelog', '', {'package_id': 2737, 'id': 206934, 'changelog_data_id': 77196}], ['changelog', '', {'package_id': 2737, 'id': 206940, 'changelog_data_id': 77195}], ['changelog', '', {'package_id': 2737, 'id': 206909, 'changelog_data_id': 77194}], ['sig_key_id', ['50e94c991aca3465'], ['50e94c991aca3465']]]

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Spacewalk 1.8 (Nightly)

How reproducible:
seemed as random bug to me

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rhnpush as many packages as you can
  
Actual results:
error message mentioned at the beginning of bug report

Expected results:
no error

Additional info:
we checked sha256sums of package that has already been on server and the one being pushed, they did NOT differ, we also checked database record for this package (sha256sum) and it was also exactly the same as other sha256sums

Comment 1 Jan Pazdziora 2013-03-08 15:11:28 UTC
Well, the difference seems to stem primarily from the changelog data (not sure why the sig_key_id is listed there). Can you compare the changelog data?

It might be that we've changed parsing of non-Unicode characters in those changelogs so we suddenly try to hit different records in the database.

Comment 3 Jan Pazdziora 2017-10-18 07:39:12 UTC
Is this still an active issue?

Comment 4 Tomáš Kašpárek 2018-04-10 08:48:18 UTC
Most likely not,  closing.