Re: Backward and forward compatibility

[Jeff Johnson <n3npq nc rr com>]

Axel Thimm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:11:21AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>  
>
> > The underlying issue(s) are:
> >   a) transitioning between header+payload and header-only signatures.
> >   b) using beecrypt, not gpg, for signature verification.
> >   c) changes wrto --addsign/--resign, they behave identically now, 
> > didn't always.
> >   d) always verifying signature/digest if possible.
> >
> > Yes there are different behaviors, because there are largish changes.
> >    
>
> coming to speak of it what is the compatibility range for the rpm
> format? I.e. will RH7.3 deal well with rpm generated under RH9 or
> later?
>  

The compatibility range for rpm format is quite large, 5+ years.

Content is narrower, prolly back to rpm-3.0.4 at least, farther if packaging
is tuned.

Content interpretation is covered explicitly by tracking dependencies.

And all above doesn't matter, because you'll get bit by something like NPTL,
or gnome1 vs. gnome2, or python vs. python2 or a bug in rpm long before
the format breaks.

73 de Jeff

> I'd like to have a single rpm version for different build
> environments, e.g. rpmbuild 4.2 for RH9, RH8.0 and RH7.3.
>
> In fact I am already building with 4.2 for all RH platforms, is there
> anything to fear?
>