On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:04:49PM +0000, Joe Desbonnet wrote:
> 1. What is the 'correct' method of arranging a set of update RPMs for
> a given package in chronological order? I'm currently using the file
> timestamp, but can I rely on mirror servers to preserve timestamps? At
> first I thought sorting by file name would work until I encountered
> kernel-2.6.9 and kernel-2.6.10 :) I see there is a build date field
> in the RPM header. Is that guaranteed to be in the correct order?
Really chronological or e:v-r?
> // TODO: why this? <-- here is my problem: some rpms reported
> // 212, but if I used this value it failed. If I fix structSize to 216 all
> // the RPMs in the FC3 distribution work !
> if (structSize==212) {
> structSize=216;
> }
The file offset of the header must be divisible by 8, just skip
enough bytes to achieve the needed alignment.
Mirek
