Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFE: Store auxiliary data in rpmdb #1595

Closed
j-mracek opened this issue Mar 23, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

RFE: Store auxiliary data in rpmdb #1595

j-mracek opened this issue Mar 23, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@j-mracek
Copy link
Member

It is difficult to decide which package from a repository was installed, because repodata created by createrepo contains only checksum of the whole package and rpmdb contains only checksum of a header. What about to store such an information in RPMDB?

@dmach
Copy link

dmach commented Mar 30, 2021

Multiple checksums associated with each package would be nice.
For example:

  • an old repo uses sha1 checksums
  • dnf uses sha256 checksum as an internal primary package identifier
  • dnf computes both checksums and stores them in rpmdb when a package gets installed/upgraded

@pmatilai pmatilai added the RFE label Aug 17, 2021
@pmatilai
Copy link
Member

We have way too many checksums in rpm as it is 😅

The header is the data by which a package should be identified, because the whole can differ due to uncompressed vs compressed payload, both of which are acceptable to rpm as long as the bits are identical.

The generic case here would be permitting storage of auxiliary data in rpmdb, which has been requested for various purposes for as long as I remember. I think mostly everybody agrees that there are legitimate cases for it, but the devil is in the details.

@pmatilai pmatilai changed the title Store an alternative package checksums in rpmdb RFE: Store auxiliary data in rpmdb Aug 17, 2021
@pmatilai pmatilai self-assigned this Nov 29, 2023
@rpm-software-management rpm-software-management locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 22, 2024
@pmatilai pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2869 Jan 22, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants