site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev@lists.apple.com I see that the pmdoc file contains an XML file which begins with <pkmkdoc spec="1.12"> ++ Why not document the formats of installer PACKAGES themselves? 1) Installer packages are much less buggy 2) They are a lot more likely to be supported in a few years... Sheesh, mkbom even has a pretty good man page... _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.a... On Oct 4, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Iceberg-Dev wrote: On Oct 4, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote: On Oct 4, 2008, at 1:31 AM, Bill Janssen wrote: Any chance that spec is available? I'd love to have a publicly available spec for this... The official answer will probably be that you can file a bug report on this requesting the format to be made available publicly. I will save you some time: I filed a enhancement request for that more than 3 years ago regarding the format of PackageMaker documents. I think the answer at one point was something equivalent to: which word don't you understand in 'proprietary format'? So your best option is to document it yourself. Seriously, a bundle package contains a pretty small number of things to document, and it's easily constructed using common unix tools. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com