On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> wrote:

>
> 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


The proprietary RPM package that i have seen, mostly from a big commercial
company - useless to tell which- have  no  digital signature anyway.

My experience only.

Best Regards

> ______________________________________________________________________
> RPM Package Manager                                    http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List                        rpm-devel@rpm5.org
>