>this cannot be reflected in PAYLOADFORMAT as that would be a gratituous
>compatibility break
Ironically dropping the tag entirely would work fine, because of the backwards
compatibility backflips already in place to deal with v3 packages.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/1825dbf8244b129665a69481c4537a57b9e03a8f/lib/depends.c#L71
So... why not? The situation already exists where you need to actually look at
the payload to figure out what it is, and use RPM to process it in any case.
Alternatively can we at least neuter this check and get that backported, so
that `PAYLOADFORMAT` could theoretically be fixed in a couple years.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2919#discussioncomment-8551719
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2919/comments/8551...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
