Re: python nosignatures/digests in rpm 4.4.1?

[seth vidal <skvidal linux duke edu>]

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