administrators group

gdivis

We've actually found and fixed that connection leak internally this week. It's logged as PG-4026 and we are including the fix in BuildMaster 2026.3 tomorrow.

I've logged the issue with the Native API as PG-4027, and it looks to be a trivial fix that we can also get in tomorrow's release, but I will let you know if it ends up taking longer.

Thanks for reporting the issues!

-Greg

stevedennis

Hi @brodie.mclennan_5777,

Can you share the original SBOM that was generated by syft? We don't need every single package, but a handful would be nice.

That'll let us reproduce the issue a lot easier.

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @cyril ,

Ah, that'll do it! That configuration is definitely not supported, so you'll get some weird behavior. Are you able to resolve/change it via the API back? That must not have the check mechanism.

Only Docker feeds use Common Blob Storage, since they're the only ones with a bunch of weird share layer files :)

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @abhijeet.patil,

As an FYI, we do not recommend using an external PostgreSQL server.

While it's technically possible to connect to an external PostgreSQL, we strongly advise against doing so. Not only does it require sufficient expertise in managing PostgreSQL servers and databases, but it generally has a negative impact on performance, increases the cost/complexity of your configuration, and leads to increased downtime.

You may also receive reduced support since we will not support most PostgreSQL-related issues when you're using an external server, including unique permission configurations, database monitoring agents, transaction replication, etc.

That said, this is exactly one of those scenarios we do not support (i.e. running commands like CREATE SCHEMA proget AUTHORIZATION proget). We're also not sure how to "fix" your database at this point, so hopefully it's something you can just recreate without running that command at first.

We do recommend just using embedded; the database tends to be relatively small (few hundred mbs usually, even with lots of packages).

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @cyril ,

I can't see the full configuration, but do you have "common blob storage" configured on the feed? That shouldn't be possible with cloud storage enabled, but it might be something you did via the API or another bug.

Common Blob Storage is not supported with cloud storage at this time; it's something on our roadmap.

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @cyril ,

Actually, "cached" packages are stored the exact same way "local" packages are. The only difference is a flag (Cached_Indicator) on the database entry.

If you're seeing package files on local disk, they're might be from a different feed or are older (i.e. before you used cloud-storage).

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @brodie.mclennan_5777,

I've been scratching my head at this one for a bit, but I just spotted something that jumped out in your SBOM: pkg:pypi/aiofiles@25.1.0?package-id=14c45300fad292ea

Where is this SBOM from? I assume some other tool?

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @brandon_owensby_2976,

Off the top of my head, I don't know how handle locale for this particular circumstance (either DotNet::Test or the Image-based services as a whole). But in general, I believe it's a distro-specific (maybe) environment variable (LC_ALL I think?). It may vary case-by-case.

We do have an open roadmap item for reviewing Image-based Services and DotNet::Test operation as a whole (it's linked to the other comments you made), so I'll add this request to that.

Cheers,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @carl.westman_8110 ,

Thanks for the clarification!

And just as an FYI (not a complaint at all), for that specific post... we'd really only need the stack trace. The technical details.... they were.... well, as you said, you used AI

Sometimes it can be hard for us to tell who/what writes it, but it's almost always more productive for us to get (1) copy/paste of the message from diagnostic center and, ideally, the (2) steps to cause the error.

Don't get me wrong -- we super-appreciate users who take the efforts to try to troubleshoot bugs/errors, but since they can't change ProGet's code it feels like a waste of their time. Even if their review is correct, we still have to independently reproduce/verify/test it.

Anyway we're definitely open to more endpoints or more specific feedback on enduser messages or configuration screens, etc... but we consider those on a case-by-case basis (e.g. like a new command in pgutil for example).

As an FYI ... there is a separate topic on Configuration as Code, discussed over here:
https://forums.inedo.com/topic/5644/proget-configuration-as-code-iac

Thanks,
Steve

stevedennis

Hi @brodie.mclennan_5777 ,

Are you sure the issue is related to publish date? If you do an analysis and look at detailed logs, you should see issue.

I haven't had any luck reproducing this. I did this:

Created PyPi feed with a pypi.org connector
Navigated to aiofiles 25.1.0
Downloaded aiofiles-25.1.0-py3-none-any.whl
Verified file was local (Packages > "Cached")
Uploaded a minimalist SBOM file (see below)
Analyzed the build with detailed results

SBOM File:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<bom xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns="http://cyclonedx.org/schema/bom/1.7">
  <metadata>
    <timestamp>2026-10-16T19:45:59.6109575Z</timestamp>
    <tools>
      <components>
        <component type="application">
          <manufacturer>
            <name>Inedo</name>
          </manufacturer>
          <name>ProGet</name>
          <version>26.0.0.0</version>
        </component>
      </components>
    </tools>
    <component type="Null">
      <name>snakey</name>
      <version>1</version>
    </component>
  </metadata>
  <components>
    <component type="library">
      <name>aiofiles</name>
      <version>25.1.0</version>
      <purl>pkg:pypi/aiofiles@25.1.0</purl>
      <externalReferences>
        <reference type="website">
          <url>http://localhost:8624/packages/from-purl?purl=pkg%3apypi%2faiofiles%4025.1.0</url>
        </reference>
      </externalReferences>
    </component>
  </components>
</bom>

Results:

Found 0 licenses on pkg:pypi/aiofiles@25.1.0?file=aiofiles-25.1.0-py3-none-any.whl:
Analyzing compliance for aiofiles 25.1.0...
Beginning license rule analysis...
Default rules: undectableLicense=Warn, unspecifiedLicense=Compliant
No licenses detected on package; applying undectableLicense rule (Warn)
License rule analysis complete.
No policies define a aged or recently published rule, so the published date will not be checked
Policy "Global" considers recently published (30 days) Noncompliant
No policies define a latest patch, so latest patch will not be checked.
Analysis resulted in a Warn result.
aiofiles 25.1.0 is Warn No license detected

I do get a Warn result, because it's an embedded file license.

Thanks,
Steve

administrators

Posts

Member List