Skip to content

Conversation

@octo-sts
Copy link
Contributor

@octo-sts octo-sts bot commented Nov 21, 2025

No description provided.

@octo-sts
Copy link
Contributor Author

octo-sts bot commented Nov 21, 2025

🔍 Build Failed: Checksum Verification Failed

Expected commit f7bcfb3d43d8cdc7259632a49d580966c85ac92f for v18.6.0, found 2403c99a98d616668c5a34eaf99cc192af7989c5

Build Details

Category Details
Build System melange
Failure Point git-checkout step during git tag verification

Root Cause Analysis 🔍

The Git tag v18.6.0 points to a different commit hash than expected. The build configuration expects commit f7bcfb3d43d8cdc7259632a49d580966c85ac92f but the actual tag points to 2403c99a98d616668c5a34eaf99cc192af7989c5. This indicates either the tag was moved/updated upstream or the expected commit hash in the build configuration is incorrect.


🔍 Build failure fix suggestions

Found similar build failures that have been fixed in the past and analyzed them to suggest a fix:

Similar PRs with fixes

Suggested Changes

File: gitaly-18.6.yaml

  • modification at line 38 (pipeline section, git-checkout step)
    Original:
expected-commit: f7bcfb3d43d8cdc7259632a49d580966c85ac92f

Replacement:

expected-commit: 2403c99a98d616668c5a34eaf99cc192af7989c5

Content:

Update the expected-commit hash in the git-checkout pipeline step to match the actual commit hash that tag v18.6.0 points to
Click to expand fix analysis

Analysis

All three similar fixes follow an identical pattern: when there's a mismatch between the expected commit hash and the actual commit hash for a git tag, the solution is to update the expected-commit field in the git-checkout pipeline step to match the actual commit hash found in the repository. In all cases, the fixes simply replaced the incorrect expected commit hash with the correct one that the tag actually points to (3e6926ff6ed2dd5ee8a11b9bd42174f29a71cea3 -> cf69fd6c2c8e0af90cfa010cacd12f00f61e1cf6 for v18.3.0, and 88f979d79bb1c74f98c9ae0720dcc5eb6f83371c -> b7cdc2ac78f7dabac1f9312ee96b6dedaf91171f for v18.3.0). This indicates that upstream repositories occasionally move tags or the initial commit hashes were incorrectly recorded.

Click to expand fix explanation

Explanation

This fix addresses the root cause of the checksum mismatch error by updating the expected commit hash to match what the tag v18.6.0 actually points to in the upstream repository. The error indicates that the build system expected commit f7bcfb3d43d8cdc7259632a49d580966c85ac92f but found 2403c99a98d616668c5a34eaf99cc192af7989c5. This is a common issue in GitLab repositories where tags may be moved or updated after initial release. By updating the expected-commit field to 2403c99a98d616668c5a34eaf99cc192af7989c5, the git-checkout step will successfully validate the tag and proceed with the build. This approach is proven effective as shown by the three similar fixes that all resolved identical checksum mismatch errors by updating the expected commit hash to match the actual tag reference.

Click to expand alternative approaches

Alternative Approaches

  • Remove the expected-commit field entirely to skip commit hash validation, though this reduces build reproducibility and security
  • Verify the tag change was legitimate by checking GitLab's commit history and release notes before updating the hash
  • Contact the upstream GitLab team to understand why the tag was moved, though this would delay the fix

Was this comment helpful? Please use 👍 or 👎 reactions on this comment.

@octo-sts octo-sts bot added the ai/skip-comment Stop AI from commenting on PR label Nov 21, 2025
@OddBloke OddBloke self-assigned this Nov 25, 2025
@octo-sts octo-sts bot added the bincapz/pass bincapz/pass Bincapz (aka. malcontent) scan didn't detect any CRITICALs on the scanned packages. label Nov 25, 2025
@OddBloke OddBloke requested a review from a team November 25, 2025 22:42
@OddBloke OddBloke enabled auto-merge November 25, 2025 22:43
Fixes the reported go version module with the package version.

Signed-off-by: David Negreira <[email protected]>
@dnegreira
Copy link
Member

The go module version wasn't being reported properly:

╭─dnegreira@cg-vm-dev ~/packages/pre
╰─$ wolfictl sbom gitaly-init-cgroups-18.6-18.6.0-r0-aarch64.apk
🔎 Scanning "gitaly-init-cgroups-18.6-18.6.0-r0-aarch64.apk"
├── 📄 /.PKGINFO
│       📦 gitaly-init-cgroups-18.6 18.6.0-r0 (apk)
└── 📄 /usr/bin/setup_cgroups
        📦 github.com/containerd/cgroups/v3 v3.1.1 (go-module)
        📦 github.com/moby/sys/userns v0.1.0 (go-module)
        📦 gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitaly/tools/gitaly-init-cgroups v0.0.0-20251119164948-2403c99a98d6+dirty (go-module)

Fixed on: 5a5a8bf

─dnegreira@cg-vm-dev ~/packages/pre/pre
╰─$ wolfictl sbom gitaly-init-cgroups-18.6-18.6.0-r0-x86_64.apk                                                                          1 ↵
🔎 Scanning "gitaly-init-cgroups-18.6-18.6.0-r0-x86_64.apk"
├── 📄 /.PKGINFO
│       📦 gitaly-init-cgroups-18.6 18.6.0-r0 (apk)
└── 📄 /usr/bin/setup_cgroups
        📦 github.com/containerd/cgroups/v3 v3.1.1 (go-module)
        📦 github.com/moby/sys/userns v0.1.0 (go-module)
        📦 gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitaly/tools/gitaly-init-cgroups v18.6.0 (go-module)

Copy link
Member

@aborrero aborrero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@OddBloke OddBloke merged commit 6516335 into main Nov 27, 2025
26 checks passed
@OddBloke OddBloke deleted the gitaly-18.6 branch November 27, 2025 11:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ai/skip-comment Stop AI from commenting on PR automated pr bincapz/pass bincapz/pass Bincapz (aka. malcontent) scan didn't detect any CRITICALs on the scanned packages. service:version-stream

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants