Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Lars Hartmann <lars@××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] xpak documentation
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:18:42
Message-Id: 1233501506.22246.13.camel@apollon
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] xpak documentation by Ciaran McCreesh
I am wondering about the following two points:
     1. Is there an effort to define a standard for binary packages
        especially the way how the metadata are attached?
     2. Are there any other alternatives to xpak?
Am Sonntag, den 01.02.2009, 14:53 +0000 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:48:41 +0100 > Lars Hartmann <lars@××××××××.org> wrote: > > i have stumbled across this document a few days ago and realized that > > there is no documentation for the xpak format as used in gentoo binary > > packages. > > Mm, that's because I'm not convinced the binary format Portage uses > just now is standard-worthy. I'd rather keep PMS restricted in scope. >
-- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / Respect for low technology. X Keep e-mail messages readable by any computer system. / \ Keep it ASCII.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature