No, declaring such a thing unsupported is IMO too harsh. Like I suggested
earlier, I would find acceptable assuming the default `type: rpm` in this case
(or maybe even `type: any`) in which case producers of such data must accept
the fact that by mixing multiple types of packages under a single repo in the
lockfile may lead to less accurate results in terms of e.g. producing an SBOM
out of the prefetched artifacts, otherwise usage of `type` information should
IMO not be deemed of any significance when it comes to the fetched artifacts
themselves, IOW the different types of RPMs would have been part of the
original repo same way as they're going to be after a pre-fetch or am I
mistaken in my reasoning?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2908#discussioncomment-8490867
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2908/comments/8490...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
