In regard to: Re: rpm3 package still exist, Jeff Johnson said (at 2:35pm on...:

>
> 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.

:-)  I personally don't care about the loss of vendor signatures.  Since
I'm not very familiar with RPM internals, I'm not sure what all the
implications are for the loss of header+payload MD5, but I'm guessing
most RPM users won't care.

> 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.

That's great to hear.

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                        Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Information Technology Services                   (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building                        (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164