Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format, first public draft for commenting (Discussion #2374)
I see use case for having unsigned property headers ignored at installation. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that it is not possible today. Here is what I have in mind: If i get a RPM from a factory and if I want to add some data of my own (data that use crypto on its side for prooving its authenticity) but I want not modify the original RPM. Such property could be used for managing RPMs. It could also be used in plugins for specific action. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-7798106 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)
@jobol commented on this pull request. > @@ -229,7 +216,7 @@ In our example there would be 32 such 16-byte index > entries, followed by the data section: ``` -0210: 72 70 6d 00 32 2e 31 2e 32 00 31 00 52 65 64 20rpm.2.1.2.1.Red +0210: 72 70 6d 00 32 2e 31 2e 32 00 31 00 52 65 64 20rpm.2.1.2.1.Red IMHO The trail space is expected in that particular case -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2835#pullrequestreview-1808238410 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
