Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
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@...> 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.
|
| Attachment: |
|
signature.asc (Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil)
|
|
