> > Unfortunately the suggested format of `Source(sha256): format` is not
> > backward compatible with older rpm releases, and having the checksum as an
> > extra tag (with autonumbering) and if conditions could be error prone and
> > tricky.
> Is backward compatibility really an issue if we're talking about a new
> feature?
Yes, because it breaks parsing of spec files with older releases, and thats a
common/supported scenario in openSUSE (where packages are maintained in
tumbleweed, but are also built for older releases). it would be really nasty
having to %if that out all the time.
> This wasn't an okay reason when we added weak dependencies (which also broke
> on old rpm too).
Sure, but that was a much more fundamental change, breaking it there is a
desirable behavior.
> The alternative proposal relies on RPM having broken syntax parsing, because
> I don't see a reason that it shouldn't choke on `Source sha256(<checksum>):
> URL`.
Well, it doesn't, and I don't think we'll change the behavior of old releases.
and new releases can parse this then with a patch.
> And the "alternative syntax" breaks the ability to use SourceURL downloading
> (which most distributions actually do rely on).
no, absolutely not. it works just fine (except for in the open build service,
but that has been fixed today).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/463#issuecomment-1635663830
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/463/1635663...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
