Universal package specification

[Eugene Gorodinsky]

The XML is simply to show the structure of the format. I forgot to
mention that everything except for the signature and the public key is
signed, so it doesn't make sense to make this a format which is
editable with a text editor. This is also why I'm thinking it should
be a binary format.

What I was proposing though is not a spec file format that could be
used to create rpms, debs etc., but rather an additional format like
rpm or dpkg but aimed specifically at portable packages. One of the
benefits of using it instead of a spec file is that ISVs that deliver
proprietary software such as skype or nero will be able to package
their software in this package format with every distribution
benefiting from it. No need for repackaging. Of course, in order to
support this format existing package formats need to be changed to
provide extended dependency information. However, other than that and
being compatible with the necessary libraries and dbus interfaces
nothing is required from a distribution. This allows distribution
developers to change pretty much any underlying functionality. And
when you're deciding whether to provide a specific interface for
compatibility sake or not, you can easily find out what packages will
stop working if you don't provide it.

2009/11/27 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org>:
> On 11/28/2009 12:50 AM, Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
>
>>
>> Also since packages are not only distributed by themselves, but (and
>> this happens more and more often) through repositories, some of the
>> header data in packages such as rpm or dpkg packages is duplicated. In
>> order to eliminate duplication the new format separates package
>> information (such as dependencies, package name, provides etc.) from
>> the actual files that need to be installed. The package information is
>> contained in the package manifest and the files that will be installed
>> are contained in package archives.
>>
>> This specification is by no means complete, and I would like to get some input.
>
> Is this format supposed to be edited or generated automatically by
> upstream developers using tools? If it is machine generated and parsed,
> then look at
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2009-April/msg00007.html
>
> For this purpose, XML is fine but if it is supposed to be edited by
> package maintainers, you might want to look at the key value ini format
> used by Moblin
>
> http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/fedora-devel-list@redhat.com/msg78885.html
>
> IMO, having the upstream developers put in some metadata in their source
> code which all downstream developers can use readily use would help the
> distributions without duplication of metadata and sharing the burden of
> maintenance.
>
> Rahul
>