| 1 |
I am wondering about the following two points: |
| 2 |
1. Is there an effort to define a standard for binary packages |
| 3 |
especially the way how the metadata are attached? |
| 4 |
2. Are there any other alternatives to xpak? |
| 5 |
Am Sonntag, den 01.02.2009, 14:53 +0000 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 6 |
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:48:41 +0100 |
| 7 |
> Lars Hartmann <lars@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > i have stumbled across this document a few days ago and realized that |
| 9 |
> > there is no documentation for the xpak format as used in gentoo binary |
| 10 |
> > packages. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Mm, that's because I'm not convinced the binary format Portage uses |
| 13 |
> just now is standard-worthy. I'd rather keep PMS restricted in scope. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign |
| 17 |
\ / Respect for low technology. |
| 18 |
X Keep e-mail messages readable by any computer system. |
| 19 |
/ \ Keep it ASCII. |
Archives