I would like to see dnf history not being messed up by direct installations with `rpm -i`.
While `dnf history` is a great feature, it would be even greater if the related functionality
was implemented directly in rpmdb and both rpm and dnf used that db. Meaning that
any consistency checks would be in that db too.
Just an idea.
clime
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM Jeff Johnson <n3npq.jbj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The real problem is that both E:N-V-R.A and N-E:V-R.A are equally imprecise.
The concept of "reproducible builds/installs" requires much more complete identifiers for serious work. But that was not the question asked in this thread.
So calculating both checksums, on rearranged plaintext items, for compatibility, kinda misses the underlying need to verify system installs on hundreds of machines.
_______________________________________________
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/G5PQ6DZKLVJJYPJCQG2VVQQMRAITETJ3/
_______________________________________________ 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/CVZAQ5IQATEMD6NTDUAQ47A2HWI6VMCV/
