Re: Re: dtd for package.xml-files

On 19 Sep 2003 at 13:30, Greg Beaver wrote: > I'd like to see at the very least subpackages in there, and possibly > the publicweb role. There have been no solid oppositions to > publicweb, and I think people like subpackages now too, although it's > hard to tell :). > This would involve adding the allowed dependency type "spkg" and > file > role "publicweb" or whatever people want to call it. Yes, from the previous discussions on this list I would agree with you to have these two (and have them under these names - why not). Stefan > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > Sorry if I missed something on the list - but I think I didn't :-) > > > > Tomas, what's the latest news about your dtd for package.xml-files? > > Was there a final release? Would you mark the filelist as being > > optional (for the changelog which doesn't really need to list all > > files in all releases)? > > > > And if we come to a final package.xml-format maybe this could be > > announced on the list so people could start at least hand-checking > > their package.xml against the dtd or also check other people's > > package.xml in CVS against the dtd and build diff's for the next > > releases of packages. > > > > Stefan > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >