Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Tiziano Müller" <dev-zero@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:15:08
Message-Id: fmt7l6$hto$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml by Mark Loeser
1 Mark Loeser wrote:
2
3 > Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> said:
4 >>
5 >> Current state: "Deferred"
6 >> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me)
7 >
8 > Yea, this sounds like a good thing from reading over the GLEP, unless
9 > I'm missing some glaring problems with it.
10 >
11 >> Open questions from last discussion (March 2006):
12 >> - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one <maintainer>
13 >> entry?
14 >
15 > Yea, agree.
16 >
17 >> - Is recording an upstream-status (active/inactive) a good idea?
18 >> Possibilities:
19 >> An element: <status>{active/inactive}</status>
20 >> An attribute: <maintainer status="{active/inactive}">...
21 >
22 > Definately. We have several packages in the tree that once they become
23 > broken, we'd have to start developing ourselves. This will help the
24 > treecleaner project as well so they can tell if a package has several
25 > open bugs and upstream is inactive, its a very good candidate for
26 > getting booted from the tree.
27 >
28 >> - Is an additional <doc> element needed to link to upstream docs
29 >
30 > Sounds reasonable.
31 >
32 >> - Must the type of <remote-id> be controlled/listed/checked?
33 >
34 > I'd say we should come up with a good list to start with. We can come
35 > up with updates to the allowed values at a later date, but I do think we
36 > should keep this under control.
37 Ok, agreed.
38 Where should we keep that list?
39 Something like "gentoo-x86/metadata/dtd/upstream-tags.dtd" ?
40
41
42 --
43 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list