Re: Proper metadata format

RPMTAG_PACKAGER is one example. RPMTAG_URL is another. I'm really trying to
determine if there are fields I am not accounting for (I see mention of
suggests and enhances, but I've never seen an rpm with those defined)?
That's why I was hoping for a layout of what is required and what is
optional. I'm guessing each tool that uses the metadata has different
requirements, is this correct?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:43 PM, seth vidal <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:40 -0700, Joshua Bahnsen wrote:
> > Not really a different format, but not all rpms contain the same
> > header info so a few fields are empty, that's really what I mean. If
> > those fields are empty, they aren't required?
>
>
> Give me an example of a field?
>
> But in general if the field isn't present it is b/c it is not present in
> the actual rpm.
>
> -sv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-metadata
>

_______________________________________________
Rpm-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-metadata