On 3/9/06, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >And it appears that the flag I want is simply > > >rpm._RPMVSF_NOPAYLOAD. (And it > > >can be set only the once.) > > Add --stats to see what time various operations take. If NOPAYLOAD is > > affecting, > > then you have *lots* of packages with old header+payload signatures. > > I was testing on the Fedora Core 3 updates area -- does that count as "old"? > No, packages produced by rpm-4.0.4 or earlier count as "old". Hmmm, actually are most of the packages you are checking not signed? I'm trying to understand why NEEDPAYLOAD has any effect whatsoever. NEEDPAYLOAD prevents verifying header+payload digest or signature, leaves the file descriptor positioned at beginning of payload, ready for unpacking. The flag was never intended for the purpose that you are using it for. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
