On Jun 21, 2008, at 2:45 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
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)
There is rpm --xml, true WYSIWIG.
There is also rpm --yaml, much easier on the eyes.
And if one looks carefully, one can also see that RPMTAG_FILENAMES
MUST be sorted, and that dependencies SHOULD be sorted (excwpt
when vendors/packagers choose to do something different).
Without any "standard", more doco just adds to the cacophony of
packaging wars imho.
A true semantic interpretation of how tags should be used/interpreted
is largely
out of rpm development scope these days.
Which is also the basis for my opinion that the opportunity
for a "LSB Packaging Standard" to be useful closed several years ago.
There are way too many RPM differences these days for documentation to
clarify much of anything.
But YMMV, everyone has their own opinion, easily and obviously
understood.
73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
LSB Communication List rpm-lsb@rpm5.org
