On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at 10:56pm
on...:
I can sign the document i wrote. I can sign document, written by other, on
which i have control, can update, verify the quality or, almost, i
Prolly the same place MySQL.com builds some of theirs.
$ rpm -qpi MySQL-5.0.51a-0.src.rpm
Name: MySQLRelocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 5.0.51a Vendor: MySQL AB
Release : 0 Build Date: Mon Jan 14
In regard to: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at 4:53pm on Jun...:
rpm -qi TIVsm-API
Name: TIVsm-APIRelocations: /opt
Version : 5.3.0 Vendor: IBM
Release : 0 Build Date: Wed 08 Dec 2004
01
Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at 4:53pm
on Jun...:
rpm -qi TIVsm-API
Name: TIVsm-APIRelocations: /opt
Version : 5.3.0 Vendor: IBM
Release : 0 Build
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you try sign an RPM built with 3.0.x with a 4.X.Y version of RPM, the
RPM becomes corrupted.
Would this be something that's easy to fix -- make RPM 5.1.x capable of
signing both modern and ancient RPMs? It sure would
On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at 4:53pm
on Jun...:
rpm -qi TIVsm-API
Name: TIVsm-APIRelocations: /opt
Version : 5.3.0 Vendor: IBM
Release : 0
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jason Corley said (at 12:35pm...:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you try sign an RPM built with 3.0.x with a 4.X.Y version of RPM, the
RPM becomes corrupted.
Would this be something that's easy to fix
/lang/.buildDate
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jason Corley said (at
12:35pm...:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you try sign an RPM built with 3.0.x with a 4.X.Y
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
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
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
On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
:-) 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.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
:-) 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
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jeff Johnson said (at 3:25pm on...:
Modern == what has been widely deployed for 6+ years.
Jeff, I totally agree. The problem is, for better or worse, there are
plenty of large commercial vendors that are still providing software
that's been
On Jun 25, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at
10:06pm on...:
Why lusers want to resign package they have not created in first
place: if
they want signed package, well, they have to ask the vendor
alongside the
pub key
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at 10:06pm
on...:
Why lusers want to resign package they have not created in first place: if
they want signed package, well, they have to ask the vendor
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at 10:56pm on...:
I can sign the document i wrote. I can sign document, written by other, on
which i have control, can update, verify the quality or, almost, i have
trust. If i have to sign document, which i have paid and not have
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jeff Johnson said (at 4:21pm on...:
Why lusers want to resign package they have not created in first place: if
they want signed package, well, they have to ask the vendor alongside the
pub key - they have already paid anymore.
So they can distribute
On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, devzero2000 said (at
10:56pm on...:
I can sign the document i wrote. I can sign document, written by
other, on
which i have control, can update, verify the quality or, almost, i
have
trust. If i
20 matches
Mail list logo
