Re: Last minute changes to rpm-4.0.3.

[Jeff Johnson <jbj JBJ ORG>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:21:11PM -0400, Peter Bowen wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2001 19:02:06 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > Here's the CHANGELOG entries for rpm-4.0.3-0.61:
> <snip>
> > 
> > 1) - package version now configureable, default v3.
> > 
> > The potential benefit is that legacy versions of rpm will
> > be able to understand packaging produced by rpm-4.0.3. This is mostly
> > a vain hope, as there are many, many other incompatibilities in package
> > contents, that will be reflected in dependencies, paths, etc, but I'm tired
> > of being blamed for creating the (false!) illusion of a "3 != 4" incompatibility.
> >
> 
> While older versions of RPM won't complain that they can't handle the
> packages produced by RPM v4, won't they still be incompatible due to the
> 
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> 
> dependency?  It appears that all RPMs built with a v4 RPM have this dep.
> Is there a way to turn this off, or will this be the equivilent of a v4
> flag without having to explicitly break compatibility with older RPM
> versions?
> 

Yup, --define '_noPayloadPrefix 1' has been around to fix that since it was
implemented. rpm itself, for example, is built this way.

Meanwhile, please, please, please, let's not start doing designer packaging
with a lot of half-baked obscure mechanisms, or there's gonna be a mess
that I can't solve.

Except I can always change byte #5 to a 5 and be right back where I started,
sigh.

73 de Jeff

-- 
Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
jbj@jbj.org	(jbj@redhat.com)
Chapel Hill, NC