[Rpm-metadata] Is anybody else documenting stuff?

[seth vidal]

On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 18:17, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> It seems like we (well, you guys) are starting to converge on a stable
> representation both in the rpm- and apt-format areas. So I think it is
> time to start writing some of this stuff down, together with the
> motivations for various decisions. This way, we at least have the "RTFM"
> defense when somebody pops up later with questions about what drugs we
> were smoking when these things were decided.

What? You're saying RTFMLA (Read the Fantastic Mailing List Archives :)
isn't appropriate??? I'm SHOCKED!

> So my question is whether anybody else has already started collecting
> this stuff together into a document? If not, I will volunteer to start
> something off and then we can beat on it as things move forward. I would
> like to generate something that is a proper document, rather thane
> something Wiki-like, since quality will be important and having a
> self-contained entity that can be packaged and shipped has its benefits
> as well.

works for me - consider your volunteering accepted :)

> [Oh, and as the last remaining person in the world without a website, I
> shall eventually need to pass this off to somebody if we want to make it
> available to the public, but we can cross that bridge when we come to
> it.]

post it to here or mail it to me - I can put it up at linux.duke.edu.

Would it be helpful to anyone else if I went ahead and started a
http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/ location where all this misc stuff could
be archived and where we could start putting the definitions for the
whole format?

-sv