[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Corrupted APT meta-deta for sh4

On 2016-03-26 14:43, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Aurelien!


> We are still having issues with the APT meta-data, this time sh4 is
> affected [1]:
> Err:60 ftp://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian unstable/main sh4 libopenexr22
> sh4 2.2.0-10
>   Writing more data than expected (630654 > 630196) [IP: 21]
> Err:61 ftp://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian unstable/main sh4
> libopenexr-dev sh4 2.2.0-10
>   Undetermined Error [IP: 21]

openexr has been uploaded twice, first on 2016-03-03:

| Maintainer: debian/sh4 buildd <buildd-vs95@glaubitz.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
| Uploader: Debian buildd autosigning key for vs95 <buildd_sh4-vs95@buildd.debian-ports.org>
| Accepted: openexr_2.2.0-10_sh4.changes

And the second time on 2016-03-04:

| Maintainer: Debian SH4 buildd <buildd-sh4-amagi@superh.org>
| Uploader: Debian buildd autosigning key for vs94 <buildd_sh4-vs94@buildd.debian-ports.org>
| Accepted: openexr_2.2.0-10_sh4.changes

Note also that something is wrong with this build daemon. The signing
key doesn't match the maintainer. Please use the signing key only at one
place and make sure it never leaves the build daemon.

> Err:62 ftp://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian unstable/main sh4 libpaper1 sh4
> 1.1.24+nmu4
>   Undetermined Error [IP: 21]

This one has only been uploaded once recently

> Err:63 ftp://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian unstable/main sh4 libpcrecpp0v5
> sh4 2:8.35-8
>   Undetermined Error [IP: 21]

Same for this one.

> Err:64 ftp://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian unreleased/main sh4 libproxy1
> sh4 0.4.11-4+sh4.1
>   Undetermined Error [IP: 21]

Same for this one.

> Err:65 ftp://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian unstable/main sh4 libsm6 sh4
> 2:1.2.2-1
>   Undetermined Error [IP: 21]

Same for this one.

> We had a similar problem with m68k before when two buildds uploaded the
> same package shortly after each other and therefore the meta-data did
> no longer match the actual files in the archive.
> I'm not sure what happened with sh4 this time, but do you think you
> could apply the same fix you applied for m68k by forcing the
> regeneration of the archive meta-data?

That should be regenerated in the next mini-dinstall.


Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: