[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Opening of package attested available by 'dnf' failing (Issue #2381)

[Panu Matilainen]

Note that Max-rpm hasn't been updated in like twenty years. It's interesting as historical reference, but you don't want to rely on that for documentation.

>From rpm (8):

```
       -p, --package PACKAGE_FILE
              Query  an  (uninstalled) package PACKAGE_FILE.  The PACKAGE_FILE
              may be specified as an ftp or http style URL, in which case  the
              package header will be downloaded and queried.  See FTP/HTTP OP‐
              TIONS for information on rpm's ftp and http client support.  The
              PACKAGE_FILE  argument(s),  if not a binary package, will be in‐
              terpreted as an ASCII package manifest unless  --nomanifest  op‐
              tion  is  used.   In manifests, comments are permitted, starting
              with a '#', and each line of a package manifest file may include
              white  space  separated  glob expressions, including URL's, that
              will be expanded to paths that are substituted in place  of  the
              package  manifest  as  additional  PACKAGE_FILE arguments to the
              query.
```

yum-era repoquery could give the actual download url which could've been passed to rpm... but there's not a whole lot of point in that, as 'repoquery -i' provides the same basic info as 'rpm -qi'.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2381#issuecomment-1419148499
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2381/1419148499 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20230206/e222d968/attachment-0001.html>