On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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. > No. I am wrong and you are right: I am finally aware. What is important it is the rpm5 development no other thing. Best Regards Elia > > 73 de Jeff > ______________________________________________________________________ > RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org > LSB Communication List rpm-lsb@rpm5.org >
