1 |
В Пнд, 07/12/2009 в 21:20 +0100, Thilo Bangert пишет: |
2 |
> Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o> said: |
3 |
> > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 12:56 +0100, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
4 |
> > > dev-util/cucumber <herd> missing |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Fixed, but this is really a bug in metadata.dtd, which specifies |
7 |
> > <!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( (herd|maintainer|longdescription|use| |
8 |
> > upstream)* )> |
9 |
|
10 |
> indeed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206 |
11 |
|
12 |
So what we will do with this? It'll be great to fix dtd to follow our |
13 |
requirements, but there is a problem: |
14 |
|
15 |
if we change dtd like this: |
16 |
|
17 |
<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( herd+, (maintainer|longdescription|use|upstream)* )> |
18 |
|
19 |
we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first |
20 |
<herd/> then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with |
21 |
different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 . |
22 |
|
23 |
Hans's suggestion http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c7 works |
24 |
but it is not nice and prohibits another order: herd, other tags, herd. |
25 |
|
26 |
Personally I'd kept dtd simple and forced ordering. |
27 |
|
28 |
So actually two questions here: |
29 |
|
30 |
1. How should we fix dtd? |
31 |
2. Are there any problems if we fix dtd first and let maintainers fix |
32 |
metadata.xml on bumps (iow, what will became broken if metadata.xml |
33 |
became not valid)? |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Peter. |