2007/12/3, Jim Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 12/2/07, Aitor Santamaría <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But programs that are in the "distributions" can be assumed to be
> re-zipped pkgs, especially so if we choose to rename them with FDP or
> PKG.

That is good. Then you could go along with an standard. Perhaps
re-versioning the packing howto. Reviewing other things, as the must
of including the LSM file somewhere (as in the header), and the
possible extensions to the LSM (see below).

> Interestingly, at one point on FDPM we had considered adding
> dependencies and post-install tasks a-la the RPM spec (%dependencies%
> and %pre% and %post% sections after the "End" in the LSM.) But we
> never followed up on it while I worked on FDPM.

What I am then a bit lost is, what and where is the use of the XML
file that was mentioned in other parts of the conversation?

> If we're open to discussing the pkg format, I'd like to suggest 3 things:
> 1. adherence to the directory layout (already defined, but probably
> not well known)
> 2. move the LSM file out of the zip file archive, and into the zip
> file comment header. This makes it easier for programs built using zip
> file tools to easily read the LSM header without having to unzip part
> of the archive just to read a single APPINFO/______.LSM file.
> 3. adherence to the LSM file format. We have a lot of LSMs out there
> now that don't follow the LSM format very well. We should either move
> back to what the LSM spec actually says, or agree that we're
> abandoning it and choose some other file format for pkg info.
The (2) idea is great, specially if it can be extracted using a C API too!
As for the rest, I would simply re-version the how-to that talks about
packing (the contribution howto?).


SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to