Re: (-) Sorry, your distribution type is unsupported.

[Telsa Gwynne <hobbit aloss ukuu org uk>]

Not that I understand any of this, but I know someone who does:

On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:20:29AM -0400 or thereabouts, Ian Peters wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:05:31PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > There has been communication about the changes from RPM 3 to RPM 4, and
> > there seems to be pretty decent documentation of the rpmlib API (IANAH, so I
> 
> Please, do tell, where is this documentation?

No quarrel on the lack of docs, but..

> Is it at www.rpm.org?  Again, that documentation is for RPM 2.5,
> except for a few code snippets ported to the RPM 3.0.x API.

Well, isn't the rpm code in CVS there? With rpm-4 as a branch or
something? Does that help at all? 

> Wait, that's right, most of the 3.0.x releases managed to be subtly
> incompatible, so those examples probably won't help you at all.
> So I guess the next step is to look at the RPM headers.  Except that
> those actually misdocument RPM in places.  Try again.
> 
> Please, I personally know any number of people who would love some
> accurate and current RPM documentation.

A message from Alan because he's too lazy to subscribe and post:

    There is a complete example for multiple versions of rpm (3.0.4,
    3.0.5 and 4.0.x are all there) in gnorpm-0.95.1 in GNOME CVS.

As to this rpm-3 to rpm-4 upgrade itself: for those people who 
missed the numerous mentions before: if you have a rpm-3-based system 
and meet an rpm-4-built package, you don't have to upgrade the entire 
system to get a newer rpm: you can get rpm-3.0.5 or rpm-3.0.6 which 
will handle rpm-4.0.x-built packages.

(3.0.5 doesn't help developers porting stuff, I don't think, which I 
think was Mathieu's original rant, but it does help us end-users :))

Telsa