Re: Proper metadata format

On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:50 -0700, Joshua Bahnsen wrote:
> 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?

Each tool has different requirements, true. For depsolving purposes
packager and url are pretty much unused. They're not even rpm specfile
requirements...

-sv