Bug 843369 - Upload failed when rhnpushing
Summary: Upload failed when rhnpushing
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: Spacewalk
Classification: Community
Component: Server
Version: 1.8
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tomas Lestach
QA Contact: Red Hat Satellite QA List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: space28
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-07-26 07:11 UTC by Tomáš Kašpárek
Modified: 2018-04-20 12:21 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-04-10 08:48:18 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


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