On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:25 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Jonathan Dieter wrote: <snip> > > Is there something I'm missing here? Or will we need to update the > > rpm-only format? > > Sounds like the format will need to be updated one way or the other if all > of the above is true. The good news is that the deltarpms we generate aren't rpm-only, and regular deltarpms start with a copy of the rpm's header (which *does* have the hash format). We just have to decide whether the checksums deltarpm generates for rpms with sha256 checksums will be sha256 or md5. (And I think we should probably go with sha256, to be consistent.) <snip> > > P.P.S. I just became aware of this last week as I was attempting to > > create deltarpms for the Presto test Rawhide repository; sorry for the > > lack of notice, Seth and Luke > > Thanks for the heads up - what would you like to do here? I'm going to wait for Michael's response as he's upstream. I will try modifying deltarpm to only generate sha256 checksums when the rpm contains them, but it looks like it's going to be invasive, and Michael knows the code much better than I do. Jonathan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
