Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-bugs (4650 mails)

< Previous Next >
[Bug 1018262] Installation failure "cpio: rename" PowerPC multipath openQA test
  • From: bugzilla_noreply@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:17:26 +0000
  • Message-id: <bug-1018262-21960-h8uHdN3WTR@http.bugzilla.opensuse.org/>
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1018262
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1018262#c19

--- Comment #19 from Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@xxxxxxxx> ---
And about half of the tests succeed for recent builds and most of them for
Build20170527. That is what I call not reliably reproducible.(In reply to
Oliver Kurz from comment #18)
(In reply to Michal Suchanek from comment #17)
There is work underway to fix this bug.

Unfortunately the bug is not reliably reproducible inside QA and is very
hard to reproduce outside QA. So finding the bug may take some time.

Well, it *is* reproducible within the openQA tests and therefore what I
consider "inside QA". https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/418998 is the latest
example from yesterday and the logs explicitly show that it is the same
error:

```
2017-06-10 21:45:02 <5> install(3321) [zypp] Exception.cc(log):137
RpmDb.cc(doInstallPackage):2043 THROW: Subprocess failed. Error: RPM
failed: error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/share/fonts/100dpi/courO14-ISO8859-10.pcf.gz: cpio: rename
2017-06-10 21:45:02 <5> install(3321) [zypp] Exception.cc(log):137 error:
xorg-x11-fonts-7.6-32.1.noarch: install failed
2017-06-10 21:45:02 <5> install(3321) [zypp] Exception.cc(log):137
2017-06-10 21:45:02 <5> install(3321) [zypp] Exception.cc(log):137
2017-06-10 21:45:02 <1> install(3321) [Ruby] modules/PackageCallbacks.rb:422
DonePackage(error: 3, reason: 'Subprocess failed. Error: RPM failed: error:
unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/share/fonts/100dpi/courO14-ISO8859-10.pcf.gz: cpio: rename
error: xorg-x11-fonts-7.6-32.1.noarch: install failed
```

And about half of the tests succeed for recent builds and most of them for
Build20170527. That is what I call not reliably reproducible.


If you can provide a test case that reproduces the bug without running a
full QA installation test that would be helpful.

It might be possible to reproduce the same error by just repeatedly trying
to install/uninstall a package using rpm.

Yes, it *might*. But nobody reproduced it that way so far. So if you have exact
steps that lead to the error with reasonable probability go ahead and share
them.


Other than this, what is the problem with the "full QA installation test"?

That it happens after a lengthy process on a virtual machine somewhere in QA
which is trashed after the test rather than on a developer machine where the
state of the system can be analyzed after the error.

Only other alternative I have in mind right now is running a specific subset
of "xfstests" but I don't know which one would be feasible.

Or some tar or cpio benchmarks come to mind, yes.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
< Previous Next >