On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:

> In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jeff Johnson said (at  
> 12:41pm...:
>
>> Could a converter be written if preserving header+payload MD5 was
>> not an issue? You betcha. The details necessary to do so I tried to
>> send to <rpm-lsb@rpm5.org> this weekend past, but apparently
>> e-mail is becoming increasingly unreliable for communication,
>> I can't seem to find what I sent in the archives. Oh well ...
>
> So support for signing ancient RPMs is a no-go, but it might be  
> possible
> to convert ancient RPMs to a more modern format?
>

Yes. But it won't be the same package any more, any digital signatures
done by the vendor will be lost, and the header+payload MD5 digest will
change.

The "branding" confusion when the package is altered is all that stops
me from implementing the conversion. I do not want responsibility
for removing vendor "branding" carried by digital signatures.

Meanwhile, the incidence of "LSB format" packages is almost
zero these days. The problem will eventually solve itself,
adding a conversion tool changes almost nothing.

But I will likely write the converter this summer no matter what.

73 de Jeff