In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jeff Johnson said (at 2:35pm on...:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jeff Johnson said (at
12:41pm...:
Could a converter be written if preserving header+payload MD5 was
not an issue? You betcha. The details necessary to do so I tried to
send to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> this weekend past, but apparently
e-mail is becoming increasingly unreliable for communication,
I can't seem to find what I sent in the archives. Oh well ...
So support for signing ancient RPMs is a no-go, but it might be possible
to convert ancient RPMs to a more modern format?
Yes. But it won't be the same package any more, any digital signatures
done by the vendor will be lost, and the header+payload MD5 digest will
change.
:-) I personally don't care about the loss of vendor signatures. Since
I'm not very familiar with RPM internals, I'm not sure what all the
implications are for the loss of header+payload MD5, but I'm guessing
most RPM users won't care.
Meanwhile, the incidence of "LSB format" packages is almost
zero these days. The problem will eventually solve itself,
adding a conversion tool changes almost nothing.
But I will likely write the converter this summer no matter what.
That's great to hear.
Tim
--
Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
