Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
This is a very low priority bug, but just a heads up for the next time you need to update the autofs package - certain package scanners are failing in the prep stage, because there is an out of order entry in the changelog:
Parsing specfile for used sources failed. Falling back to downloading all sources.
Downloading autofs-5.1.7-2.tar.gz
######################################################################## 100.0%
error: %changelog not in descending chronological order
Could not execute prep: Failed to execute command.
Of course rpmlint doesn't tell you /which/ entry of the 480 in the spec file is out of order. But I worked out that it's "Tue Apr 13 2021"
Odds are it needs to be fixed in Fedora as well.
Thanks,
-Eric
(In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #0)
> This is a very low priority bug, but just a heads up for the next time you
> need to update the autofs package - certain package scanners are failing in
> the prep stage, because there is an out of order entry in the changelog:
>
I'm about to start on RHEL-9.2 updates including an autofs update.
I'll sort it out when I do the autofs update.
(In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #0)
> This is a very low priority bug, but just a heads up for the next time you
> need to update the autofs package - certain package scanners are failing in
> the prep stage, because there is an out of order entry in the changelog:
>
> Parsing specfile for used sources failed. Falling back to downloading all
> sources.
> Downloading autofs-5.1.7-2.tar.gz
> ########################################################################
> 100.0%
> error: %changelog not in descending chronological order
> Could not execute prep: Failed to execute command.
>
> Of course rpmlint doesn't tell you /which/ entry of the 480 in the spec file
> is out of order. But I worked out that it's "Tue Apr 13 2021"
There it is:
* Tue Apr 13 2021 Ian Kent <ikent> - 1:5.1.7-12
- bz1948956 - Using -hosts option does not resolve host from /etc/hosts
and mount failes
- Coverity fixes (arising from RHEL-8 bug 1912106)
...
* Thu Apr 15 2021 Mohan Boddu <mboddu> - 1:5.1.7-11
- Rebuilt for RHEL 9 BETA on Apr 15th 2021. Related: rhbz#1947937
>
> Odds are it needs to be fixed in Fedora as well.
I'll check.
Ian
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory (autofs bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2023:2492