[Rpm-metadata] Proper metadata format

[Joshua Bahnsen]

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?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:09 PM, seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org>wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 23:57 -0700, Joshua Bahnsen wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I recently undertook the task of creating a perl script to perform a
> > task similar to createrepo. My goal was to create something that could
> > be used in Windows and did not require the rpm library. I found
> > RPM::Header::PurePerl and for the most part it provided me with the
> > proper information, however, I did need to extend it slightly. The
> > output I created is based on the output of createrepo against a
> > particular collection of rpms.
> >
>
> > My question is: Is there a proper standard for the metadata files? I
> > have noticed the files distributed by RedHat do not necessarily match
> > the files created by SuSE. I have also noticed that if I use
> > createrepo against the RedHat Enterprise rpms, I am presented with
> > files in a slightly different format.
>
> Different format? What do you mean?
>
>
> > Basically what I am looking for is if there is a baseline of required
> > items (for example, do all requires need an epoch?). I probably went
> > about this backwards, but I want to make sure my resulting xml
> > documents are legit. In my testing they work fine, I see the same
> > results with the vendor provided files as I do with my own. I would
> > appreciate any direction you can provide.
>
> In general, I use yum-metadata-parser as a good tester for the xml. If
> it can read them and generate the sqlite dbs then it should be working.
>
> I agree that a simpler verification tool would be worthwhile, though.
>
> -sv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-metadata mailing list
> Rpm-metadata at lists.baseurl.org
> http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-metadata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/rpm-metadata/attachments/20081024/31d74d30/attachment.htm