Re: createrep question

"Kidwell,jr, Jack" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.rpm.yum
Message-ID <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D9480135813F2@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
I have no idea and the COTS vendor is "researching" it. Did I mention
that I dislike COTS?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Seth Vidal
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:39 AM
To: Yellowdog Updater, Modified
Subject: Re: [Yum] createrep question



On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Kidwell,jr, Jack wrote:

> I understand. Then let's approach this another way. Here's the patch
we
> made in createrepo/dumpMetadata.py:
>
>    def arch(self):
>        if self.tagByName('sourcepackage') == 1 or (
>        not self.options['relaxed-sourcerpm-check'] and not
> self.tagByName('sourcerpm') ):
>            return 'src'
>        else:
>            return self.tagByName('arch')
>
> Here's the original "if" expression:
>
>        if self.tagByName('sourcepackage') == 1 or not
> self.tagByName('sourcerpm'):
>
> What risks are we taking by allowing binary RPMs to omit a sourcerpm
> tag? Can we assume that, for workaround purposes, the sourcepackage
tag
> was not adequate for detecting source RPMs and, hence, the additional
> test for a missing sourcerpm tag was required? I lack your broad
> exposure to RPMs, so I don't know how commonly this condition occurs.

Then please tell me how this rpm was created. Was it made using
rpmbuild?

-sv

_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.