[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New XML-based package description file format?

On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:53:13AM +0000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > > I find the current 'Packages' file format rather impractical and not
> > > complete compared to the index used on www.rpmfind.net for example.
> > Hm. I don't.
> > What are your specific concerns?
> To have one real and exact indexing file instead of 3, one of them
> (Contents-$ARCH.gz) being continuously out of date.

Well, for "3" read "13" (Sources + 6 Packages + 6 Contents). Actually,
multiple the first 1+6 by 3 (main, contrib, non-free), for "27" or so.
Multiply that by two or three if you don't want to just focus on stable.

Why do we have to have something new when what we already have works
wonderfully? *sigh*

What, then, happens to dinstall, dpkg, apt, and all the scripts that
interpret dpkg formatted files by hand? What of the people who don't
actually like only having to download their arch-specific Packages
files rather than a list of all packages for all arches? Do they just
get thrown by the wayside because, hey, XML is the future?

If all the old formats stay, why not just write the translator?

Updating Contents-* more regularly is an orthogonal problem to the format
of any of these files.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpVB7aHcumoC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: