On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> 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                                    
> LSB Communication List                                rpm-lsb@rpm5.org
>