Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

[Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:35 PM Daniel Mach <dmach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi everyone,

The DNF team is currently reviewing DNF compatibility with YUM 3 and we'd like to get feedback on this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120253

rpmdb checksum is a checksum of all installed RPMs

It has no cryptographical value, it's just an unique ID of RPMs on a system before and after each transaction and it's used in dnf history info and dnf history list.

If checksums of 2 following transactions do not match, DNF indicates that.

This happens if a user installs an RPM by hand via rpm command.

Then `dnf history list` looks like:

     2 | install bar | 2018-01-01 02:00 | Install        |    2  <
     1 | install foo | 2018-01-01 01:00 | Install        |    7 >

the "<" and ">" characters indicate discontinuity in rpmdb hashes

Here's the question:

DNF computes the checksum from RPM N-E:V-R.A

while YUM computed it from E:N-V-R.A

We'd like to change the behavior to be compatible with YUM again.

This would create 1 discontinuity in rpmdb checksums in the history,

because from that point a new algorithm will be used.

Are there any concerns about such change?

I believe that >90% users wouldn't notice anything as it's related to the history database only.

Since we've changed the database entirely, what's the point of keeping same algorithm for calculating checksum?

--

-Igor Gnatenko

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/NLVQBHD5DV3NCNY4S7P7WGDJ6PZHTJ5T/