| Summary: | perl-URPM: update candidate: fix some segfaults | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mageia | Reporter: | Thierry Vignaud <thierry.vignaud> |
| Component: | RPM Packages | Assignee: | QA Team <qa-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Normal | CC: | davidwhodgins, pterjan, stormi-mageia, sysadmin-bugs, tmb |
| Version: | 2 | Keywords: | validated_update |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | mga2-32-OK mga2-64-OK | ||
| Source RPM: | perl-URPM | CVE: | |
| Status comment: | |||
| Attachments: | diff showing one less valgrind error | ||
Created attachment 2643 [details]
diff showing one less valgrind error
For the record, the whole testsuite of perl-URPM & urpmi pass Please wait a bit before testing as there is another bug fix (to write :) ) I'd like to include in this update. CC:
(none) =>
pterjan Ok, please remove the feedback marker in whiteboard once you're done. CC:
(none) =>
stormi
Samuel Verschelde
2012-08-20 12:22:47 CEST
Summary:
update candidate: fix a rare segfault =>
perl-URPM: update candidate: fix a rare segfault Assigning back to Pascal Terjan until the update is ready. Assignee:
qa-bugs =>
pterjan I have uploaded a new perl-URPM, and a new urpmi using that new perl-URPM which should get rid of a quite common segfault we get on buildsystem. Should they be part of the same update? Assignee:
pterjan =>
qa-bugs I would say yes as new perl-URPM only provides a new method that is only used by new urpmi and since this new urpmi depends on this new URPM Yes, better test them and push them together. SRPMs: urpmi-6.48.3-2.mga2.src.rpm perl-URPM-3.40.2-1.2.mga2.src.rpm do you confirm? Yes. Though it would have been better for Pascal to bump URPM to 3.40.3. But yes those are the good versions
Pascal Terjan
2012-08-30 09:59:22 CEST
Summary:
perl-URPM: update candidate: fix a rare segfault =>
perl-URPM: update candidate: fix some segfaults I think rpm should be pushed at the same time as urpmi and perl-URPM, but can't find the bug report for it. My understanding is that the change to rpm is in preparation for usrmove, and several comments on the dev mailing list indicate it's working, plus it's been working for normal usage in regular qa testing. Should it be added to this report, or should we wait for a separate bug report for rpm to be assigned to qa? CC:
(none) =>
davidwhodgins
Dave Hodgins
2012-08-31 04:38:11 CEST
Whiteboard:
(none) =>
feedback It's independant so it should be another BR
Samuel Verschelde
2012-08-31 08:28:18 CEST
Whiteboard:
feedback =>
(none) We've all been using this for some time now with no ill effects. Does anybody object to validating? Go ahead Could somebody please create an update request for rpm. Validating this one. SRPMs: urpmi-6.48.3-2.mga2.src.rpm perl-URPM-3.40.2-1.2.mga2.src.rpm Advisory ------------- This update corrects some segfaults which occurred occasionally when using urpmi. ------------- Could sysadmin please push from core/updates_testing to core/updates. Thanks! Keywords:
(none) =>
validated_update Update pushed: https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Support/Advisories/MGAA-2012-0180 Status:
NEW =>
RESOLVED |
A bug which resulted in rare segfault in urpmi was fixed in perl-URPM. It happenned from time to time on the BS Suggested advisory: =================== A bug which resulted in rare segfault in urpmi was fixed in perl-URPM. Steps to Reproduce: If you really want to check, you can: 0) run "urpmi valgrind" 1) run "valgrind perl t/synthesis.t &> LOG1" 2) update perl-URPM to 3.40.2 from update_testing 3) run "valgrind perl t/synthesis.t &>LOG2" 4) run "perl -pi -e 's!^(==|--)\d+(==|--)!${1}10000\2!' LOG?" 5) run "diff -u LOG{2,1} > l.txt" with any editor you should see something like the diff attached to this BR, aka one less error ("Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value"