On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:43, Martin Costabel wrote: > I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present > format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just > this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you > complicate this, like with XML where you need special tools for editing, > or with rpm which is much more complex
Disclamer: I know that no one really wants to move to rpm, and I'm not trying to convince any one that they should. That probably makes this off topic, but... What makes rpm more complex than fink's .info? They're mostly the same format now. rpm is more advanced, and more flexible, but that only makes a spec file more complicated than an info file if you choose to use them (which most people do, because it's "the right thing".
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
