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? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
