On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Bill Crawford wrote:
On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:12:27 Panu Matilainen wrote:
We take compatibility dead seriously, but there are very real limits to
what can be done compatibly and what can be be reasonably backported, if
possible at all. The strong hash support might be within possibilities but
already in rpm 4.6.0 the large package support is something that is
*impossible* to backport due to the required API/ABI changes.
Isn't there a) a version number in the header, and b) the possibility of one of
those rpmlib(Foo) == 111 requires being added? At least one source rpm I
grabbed to look at fails to install on an older system, but there's no warning
at all before you get these checksum errors.
Better to fail with a warning that some new feature is required?
There is a rpmlib() dependency on the strong hash support, but the
rpmlib() dependency mechanism is a bit backwards which prevents the it
from working in this particular case (from 4.6.0-rc to 4.6.0-final) :-/
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
