Bug 1478051 - Fedora 25 - RPM installation/update with progress display makes it impossible to install ep11 host package
Fedora 25 - RPM installation/update with progress display makes it impossible...
Status: NEW
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm (Show other bugs)
s390x Linux
unspecified Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: packaging-team-maint
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: ZedoraTracker
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2017-08-03 09:40 EDT by IBM Bug Proxy
Modified: 2017-08-04 08:30 EDT (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
xml file from rpm -qp --xml for file ep11-host-1.3.0-1.s390x.rpm (17.25 KB, text/plain)
2017-08-04 06:11 EDT, IBM Bug Proxy
no flags Details

External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
IBM Linux Technology Center 157143 None None None 2017-08-03 09:40 EDT

  None (edit)
Description IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-03 09:40:23 EDT

Comment 1 IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-03 09:40:28 EDT
Fedora version: zlinuxdriver 25 (Twenty Five)
RPM version:

The ep11 host package (see attachment) has to be downloaded by our customers from a IBM website and the customer has to install it with rpm -i or with rpm -U. This works correctly.

However with our new version 1.3.0-1 (not yet released) and if the rpm option '-h' is used (e.g with rpm -Uvh), rpm prints thousands of hash characters to the screen and the installation procedure does not complete. If the rpm process is killed, the next rpm command shows that many read locks need to be freed and the new package is NOT installed.

Using '--percent' shows this:
Updating / installing...
   1:ep11-host-1.3.0-1                %% 0.000000
%% 378.000000
%% 1372.000000
%% 3305.000000
%% 58286.000000
%% 64403.996094
%% 70520.000000
%% 70663.000000
%% 70811.000000
%% 136484.000000
%% 202020.000000
%% 252076.000000
%% 252220.000000
%% 252372.000000
%% 318048.000000
%% 377024.000000
%% 377167.000000
%% 377319.000000
%% 442996.000000
%% 508531.968750
%% 574068.000000
%% 606924.000000
%% 607072.000000
%% 607224.000000
%% 672900.000000
%% 738436.000000
%% 760396.000000
%% 826063.937500
%% 891600.000000
%% 957136.062500
%% 1022672.000000
%% 1088208.000000
%% 1153744.000000
%% 1219280.000000
%% 1284816.000000
%% 1350352.000000
%% 1415888.000000
%% 1481424.000000
%% 1546960.000000
%% 1612496.000000
%% 1678032.000000
%% 1743568.000000
%% 1809103.875000
%% 1874640.000000
%% 1940176.000000
%% 2005711.875000
%% 2050368.000000

Interesting is that with IO-redirection to a file RPM installs the package correctly. However the progress display is nevertheless broken:
Preparing...                          ########################################
Updating / installing...
ep11-host-1.3.0-1                     #(<-character nr 143) ... (character nr 820989->)#
Cleaning up / removing...
ep11-host-1.2.2-2                     ########################################

Workaround: Do not use the '-h' option or use it with IO-redirection to a file (e.g.: rpm -Uvh 'package' > 'filename')
Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2017-08-03 09:58:24 EDT
(In reply to IBM Bug Proxy from comment #1)
> The ep11 host package (see attachment) 

The attachment seems to be missing...
Comment 3 IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-03 10:30:41 EDT
------- Comment From benedikt.klotz@de.ibm.com 2017-08-03 10:24 EDT-------
Yes the attachment is missing because it is a package of an internal test release. I will try to reproduce the problem with another RPM package tomorrow.

Is the RPM package needed to understand the problem or can this bug also be resolved without the package?
Comment 4 Dan Horák 2017-08-03 10:36:09 EDT
Can't the RH<->IBM partner channel be used for transferring the ep11 rpm? I guess it will be difficult to reproduce the rpm behaviour with another rpm.
Comment 5 Panu Matilainen 2017-08-03 10:47:52 EDT
Any reproducer will certainly do, it doesn't have to be that specific package. Attachments can be made private (a fairly common practise in cases like this) if that helps.

But chasing bugs without a reproducer ... the package must be doing something fairly strange because the progress bar code hasn't seen much change in many years and nobody else has reported such behavior.
Comment 6 Panu Matilainen 2017-08-03 10:49:23 EDT
Doh, forgot to mention: short of an actual reproducer, output of "rpm -qp --xml <package>" might provide clues where to look.
Comment 7 IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-04 06:11:38 EDT
------- Comment From benedikt.klotz@de.ibm.com 2017-08-04 06:08 EDT-------
Thanks for the pointer with the xml output option. I will attach the output from rpm -qp --xml ep11-host-1.3.0-1.s390x.rpm > ep11_1.3.0-1_rpm.xml

It seems I found something in the xml output that is clearly wrong:
<rpmTag name="Archivesize">

Since extracting files from this rpm package does work without problems, it seems this information is only used for the progress indicator.

The rpm2archive command seems to read this info too, because it does not produce any output:

# rpm2archive ep11-host-1.3.0-1.s390x.rpm
# echo $?

However rpm2cpio works without a flaw:

# rpm2cpio ep11-host-1.3.0-1.s390x.rpm | LANG=C cpio -dium
4005 blocks

Can you give me a pointer how to create a package that contains this info?

I did forget to mention that the build machine uses a rpm in version
Comment 8 IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-04 06:11:44 EDT
Created attachment 1308976 [details]
xml file from rpm -qp --xml for file ep11-host-1.3.0-1.s390x.rpm
Comment 9 Panu Matilainen 2017-08-04 06:29:18 EDT
Right, the xml output is enough to explain it, thanks.
The rpm version used to *build* that package is buggy on big-endian systems:

  <rpmTag name="Rpmversion">

Fixed in rpm (http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/, upstream commit from the 4.12.x branch being here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/767140049c1eac57c105fdfc874c2628a9089145

But sure enough, in the face of buggy packages, rpm should either work around it or just reject it and not go crazy.
Comment 10 IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-04 08:11:54 EDT
------- Comment From benedikt.klotz@de.ibm.com 2017-08-04 08:01 EDT-------
Ok I will try to rebuild the package with a rpm that has this patch applied.

Some more consistency checking in rpm would be great.
Comment 11 IBM Bug Proxy 2017-08-04 08:30:30 EDT
------- Comment From benedikt.klotz@de.ibm.com 2017-08-04 08:26 EDT-------
ok with the patch applied I can build a rpm package that can be installed and updated with the rpm option '-h' enabled.

With this my problem is fixed. Feel free to close this bug. However the bug can also be let open if some more consistency checks in RPM should be implemented.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.