[ATrpms-users] Problems building dovecot-1.0.0-8_56.src.rpm on RHEL3

[Scott A. Hughes]

>> >> [sahughes at homer autotools-rhel3]$ rpm -K *.rpm | grep NOT
>> >> libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm: (sha1) dsa sha1 MD5 GPG NOT OK
>> >> [sahughes at homer autotools-rhel3]$
>> >>
>> >> I think the above src.rpm on http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/autotools-rhel3/
>> may
>> >> be corrupted. Can you please verify and replace if necessary?
>> >
>> > The original has the same md5sum. I don't know what rpm -K doesn't
>> > like. If it were an official package of ATrpms I would repackage it,
>> > but for internal use it's OK. *I know* that I packaged it. ;)
>>
>> The following does suggest something strange has happened. As the above "MD5 GPG
>> NOT
>> OK" output suggests, both signature and md5sum do not verify, making the package
>> effectively broken.
>>
>> [sahughes at homer autotools-rhel3]$ rpm -ivh libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm
>> --nosignature
>> error: libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm: MD5 digest: BAD
>> Expected(d694fad33f3249e64c12e2f947505f36) != (6a153ca8c95a885bf31224f12671c667)
>> error: libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm cannot be installed
>> [sahughes at homer autotools-rhel3]$
>
> Works fine here even w/o --nosignature:
>
> # rpm -ihv ./autotools-rhel3/libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm
>    1:libtool   ########################################### [100%]
> #
>
> (that's on FC6/x86_64, maybe that matters)

Thanks for that additional information. I just setup a FC6 system (x86, 32 bit) and
verified that the src.rpm installs without incident under this dist/release.

[sahughes at piranha tmp]$ rpm -ivh libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm
warning: libtool-1.5.22-6.1_17.src.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 66534c2b
   1:libtool                ########################################### [100%]
[sahughes at piranha tmp]$

I was using a native RHEL(ES)4 (Update 5) system with rpm-4.3.3-22_nonptl, where the
installation fails.

The latest of FC6 uses the following.

rpm-4.4.2-33.fc6

The respective versions of RPM (4.3.3 vs. 4.4.2) evidently/apparently handle RPMs
differently under the above circumstances.

At least I have the src.rpm installed now so I can re-build it.

Personally I would re-build the src.rpm to fix the corruption, but they are your
RPMs (^^), to play with however you want, and I am in the clear now.

Thank you for your help.

Scott.

--