On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 10:33 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 10:26 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 10:08 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 17:02 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > > > Just a heads up that deltarpm only works if the *whole* rpm is > > > > installed. If any files are missing from the old rpm (i.e. anaconda's > > > > excluded them because they're not the user's language), deltarpm will be > > > > unable to rebuild the new rpm from the drpm, and yum will have to > > > > download the full new rpm. > > > > > > Technically, yes. > > > But if you have excluded language X from your installation, what are the > > > chance that you are interested in the delta for language X ? rpm will > > > still have enough information to construct the correct contents except > > > for the part that the user explicitly chose not to install... > > > > Except that now you don't have the full RPM so you have no way to verify > > that the package hasn't been tampered with > > Yeah, problems. But I'm sure we have the engineers to solve them... > One way this could be done is to only gpg sign the rpm metadata. Where metadata includes md5/sha sums of the files and the ownership/permissions of the files. Then rpm could have a switch to allow certain file types to be missing from the archive (%lang, %doc). -Toshio
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
