On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Jeff Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2008, at 1:52 PM, devzero2000 wrote: > > >> (aside) It is time for LSB RPM SPEC to move to RPM4 packaging format >> >> > Indeed. That is the raison d'etre for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I have not > pursued > because of zero (yes zero!) interest from vendor's or LSB. So it is likely also for Berlin API zero interest because it is based on LSB RPM specs. > Not my problem. I will do a IETF RFC when I get around to it, my forward > looking > develoment goal is XAR, not RPMv4/LSB, format for packaging. Ok. I already know this and also agreed on the motivation. In the meantime could be useful to have more docu on the rpm4 packaging format, almost for the tags. There is some dubt about the semantic of some of these (RPMTAG_SIZE for example and %ghost and the like discussed recently) Best regards > > 73 de Jeff > > ______________________________________________________________________ > RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org > LSB Communication List rpm-lsb@rpm5.org >
