On 07/18/2018 09:24 AM, Daniel Mach 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 Could we just update dnf/"newyum" to calculate both checksums and only represent the discontinuity if neither match? Obviously this increases the chance of a collision, but could put this conversation to rest. At some distant point in the future we can stop calculating 'E:N-V-R.A' since all new transactions would have been calculated based on 'N-E:V-R.A' Dusty _______________________________________________ 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/2ZG45QT7AW54UKW2OVYTDHGF6OZ7VNXU/
