On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> 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 <rpm-lsb@repm5.org>. 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                                    
> LSB Communication List                                rpm-lsb@rpm5.org
>