On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 13:29 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:18:10PM -0500, Jeff Johnson 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? > > They are all signed by Red Hat / Fedora keys, which _aren't_ imported on > this system. > > > 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. > > Or that Seth is using it for. :) I reserve the right to be incorrect. ;) -sv _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
