On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:35 PM Daniel Mach <dm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > The DNF team is currently reviewing DNF compatibility with YUM 3 and we'd > like to get feedback on this one: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120253 > > rpmdb checksum is a checksum of all installed RPMs > It has no cryptographical value, it's just an unique ID of RPMs on a > system before and after each transaction and it's used in dnf history info > and dnf history list. > If checksums of 2 following transactions do not match, DNF indicates that. > This happens if a user installs an RPM by hand via rpm command. > > Then `dnf history list` looks like: > 2 | install bar | 2018-01-01 02:00 | Install | 2 < > 1 | install foo | 2018-01-01 01:00 | Install | 7 > > the "<" and ">" characters indicate discontinuity in rpmdb hashes > > Here's the question: > DNF computes the checksum from RPM N-E:V-R.A > while YUM computed it from E:N-V-R.A > > We'd like to change the behavior to be compatible with YUM again. > This would create 1 discontinuity in rpmdb checksums in the history, > because from that point a new algorithm will be used. > > Are there any concerns about such change? > I believe that >90% users wouldn't notice anything as it's related to the > history database only. > Since we've changed the database entirely, what's the point of keeping same algorithm for calculating checksum? -- -Igor Gnatenko
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NLVQBHD5DV3NCNY4S7P7WGDJ6PZHTJ5T/
