I have no idea and the COTS vendor is "researching" it. Did I mention that I dislike COTS? -----Original Message----- From: yum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:yum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Seth Vidal Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:39 AM To: Yellowdog Updater, Modified Subject: Re: createrep question On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Kidwell,jr, Jack wrote: > I understand. Then let's approach this another way. Here's the patch we > made in createrepo/dumpMetadata.py: > > def arch(self): > if self.tagByName('sourcepackage') == 1 or ( > not self.options['relaxed-sourcerpm-check'] and not > self.tagByName('sourcerpm') ): > return 'src' > else: > return self.tagByName('arch') > > Here's the original "if" expression: > > if self.tagByName('sourcepackage') == 1 or not > self.tagByName('sourcerpm'): > > What risks are we taking by allowing binary RPMs to omit a sourcerpm > tag? Can we assume that, for workaround purposes, the sourcepackage tag > was not adequate for detecting source RPMs and, hence, the additional > test for a missing sourcerpm tag was required? I lack your broad > exposure to RPMs, so I don't know how commonly this condition occurs. Then please tell me how this rpm was created. Was it made using rpmbuild? -sv _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
