On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Baumann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> I've updated the patch to remove some descriptive text that was beingmanifest has been only used for casper in ubuntu; we've never used that
> added to file and also name the copy outside of the image
> binary.manifest instead of binary.packages (the latter change less
> important, just my personal preference since it seems *.manifest seems
> to be the standard naming convention for live filesystem package manifests).
but .packages suffix instead.
The Moblin Image Creator tool also produces a .manifest file and in this format.
unrelated to this, i see no gain in removing the descriptive text, do you?
I think there is benefit to both formats. One is more verbose and what maybe you or I would want to take look at whereas the simpler one is useful as its much more machine readable. For example, I've developed a python script for comparing these manifest files (it produces a nicely formatted report that shows what packages have been removed, added, and upgraded) and another for generating a report of whats changed between two builds using information from the package changelogs. I'd be happy to share these scripts (albeit they do need some cleanup as they're more or less quick hacks) if it would make the .manifest file seem more valuable.
I should also clarify that I'd be very content if live-helper continued to produce the .packages in the same format it does now and also a .manifest; best of both by having both?