[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format draft, major update (Discussion #2919)

[Daniel Alley]

>this cannot be reflected in PAYLOADFORMAT as that would be a gratituous compatibility break

Ironically dropping the tag entirely would work fine, because of the backwards compatibility backflips already in place to deal with v3 packages.

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/1825dbf8244b129665a69481c4537a57b9e03a8f/lib/depends.c#L71

So... why not?  The situation already exists where you need to actually look at the payload to figure out what it is, and use RPM to process it in any case.

Alternatively can we at least neuter this check and get that backported, so that `PAYLOADFORMAT` could theoretically be fixed in a couple years.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2919#discussioncomment-8551719
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2919/comments/8551719 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20240221/69a1d7b9/attachment.html>