On 14 November 2006 at 19:07, Jeff Johnson <n3npq.jbj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yep. rpm-3.0.x and earlier stored paths as absolute > file names, rpm-4.0.x and later stores paths as a > (dirname,basename,dirindex) triple. > > I've removed the code from rpm-4.4.6 after years of patiently > waiting. You sure were patient. I've been chasing changes in Tcl/Tk, and Perl, and Qt, and WxWin for years. RPM has been rock solid and stable. > I'll be happy to send you a patch to restore the behavior, > and writing a conversion utility is not hard either (but all > signatures/digests on the original package will be lost). In my case just getting the files, e.g. foo.spec & foo.tar.gz, out of the source rpm is all I really need. I can see that someone else just might want to validate a signature on something. Although, the most important signatures are for security related software, and someone using something old enough to have been built with rpm 3 might have some more serious issues to deal with. Tim's hint about there being alternate versions of rpm2cpio is probably going to fully solve my problem. What do you think of including your favorite stand-alone rpm2cpio script somewhere in the rpm source for late adopters? I wonder if there is a low maintenance way to include an "out" for those folks which won't pollute the rpm code base? > There are intrinsic incompatibilities in the format change that > have forced all rpm development to track with the lowest common > denominator rpm-3.0.x packaging. Everyone has had years to > change. Yup. I've just been too lazy to upgrade rpm on Solaris until I really needed to. The need arose because they're deploying Red Hat on desktops at work -- yippee! I had to upgrade the Solaris box's rpm to at least the level of the Red Hat box, etc, etc. Thanks for all the help and education.... -- Kevin _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
