I would like to see dnf history not being messed up by direct installations with `rpm -i`.
While `dnf history` is a great feature, it would be even greater if the related functionality was implemented directly in rpmdb and both rpm and dnf used that db. Meaning that any consistency checks would be in that db too. Just an idea. clime On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM Jeff Johnson <n3npq....@gmail.com> wrote: > The real problem is that both E:N-V-R.A and N-E:V-R.A are equally > imprecise. > > The concept of "reproducible builds/installs" requires much more complete > identifiers for serious work. But that was not the question asked in this > thread. > > So calculating both checksums, on rearranged plaintext items, for > compatibility, kinda misses the underlying need to verify system installs > on hundreds of machines. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/G5PQ6DZKLVJJYPJCQG2VVQQMRAITETJ3/ >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CVZAQ5IQATEMD6NTDUAQ47A2HWI6VMCV/
