Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.dtd: Remove obsolete <natural-name/> element per GLEP 68

[Göktürk Yüksek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Michał Górny:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:41:06 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek
> <gokturk@××××××××××.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Brian Dolbec:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:39:05 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek
>>> <gokturk@××××××××××.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- metadata.dtd | 5 +---- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4
>>>> deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/metadata.dtd b/metadata.dtd index
>>>> 7626a57..b608852 100644 --- a/metadata.dtd +++ b/metadata.dtd
>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ <!ATTLIST catmetadata pkgname CDATA "">
>>>>
>>>> <!-- Metadata for a package --> -<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata (
>>>> (maintainer|natural-name|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)*
>>>> )> +<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata (
>>>> (maintainer|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* )> <!ATTLIST
>>>>  pkgmetadata pkgname CDATA ""> <!-- One tag for each
>>>> maintainer of a package, multiple allowed--> @@ -13,9 +13,6
>>>> @@ explicit type) for Gentoo maintainers is prohibited. -->
>>>> <!ATTLIST maintainer type (person|project|unknown)
>>>> "unknown">
>>>>
>>>> -  <!-- Natural name for package, example: LibreOffice (for
>>>> app-office/libreoffice) --> -  <!ELEMENT natural-name
>>>> (#PCDATA)
>>>>> - <!-- A long description of the package in freetext-->
>>>> <!ELEMENT longdescription (#PCDATA|pkg|cat)* >
>>>
>>> Isn't this almost obsolete?  it's now xmlschema...  And I hope
>>> to have the new repoman with it out this weekend :)
>>
>> Does GLEP 68 explicitly declare metadata.dtd obsolete? I see that
>> the example metadata.xml on the GLEP is missing DOCTYPE, are we
>> getting rid of those too?
>
> No, and I don't know.
>
> metadata.dtd is still required by many tools, and as such it makes
> sense to keep it. However, we may want to put some warning that
> it's not very strict, and allows major structural violations due
> to technical limitations.
>
After a discussion with ulm on IRC, we agreed that the following makes
sense: "the format of the metadata is defined in GLEP 68. the syntax
is defined in metadata.dtd. The xml-schema can be used for stricter
validation checks." If you have no objections, I will update devmanual
based on this description.

> As for DOCTYPE, there was no formal decision on that. It's not
> technically required, so the GLEP doesn't enforce it. However, I
> don't expect it being gone anytime soon. One of the reasons behind
> it is that repoman enforces it as part of metadata.xml validation.
> If it is to be gone, stable repoman needs to accept it missing at
> least for some time.
>
> There was a proposal to link new/additional schemas in
> metadata.xml files. However, I personally don't think we should go
> this way. DOCTYPE already proved troublesome (when we switched to
> https), and maintaining any kind of schema reference in XML files
> doesn't give us any real benefit (we don't enforce any hard
> defaults besides languages there, and I don't think many XML
> parsers would respect that anyway).
>
>> I understand that the DTD is more like a super-set, so anything
>> that complies with GLEP 68 will comply with the DTD as well.
>> However, there is a caveat here: for example the GLEP dismisses
>> the list of possible values for <remote-id/> by saying "The list
>> of available trackers and their specific identifiers are outside
>> scope of this specification." but does not mention where these
>> values shall be kept either. The moment we add a new remote-id,
>> the xmlschema diverges from the DTD and stops being a subset.
>
> Well, there is good reason for not hardcoding the list in the
> GLEP, and this obviously is to avoid updating the GLEP for every
> single change. And yes, as you can see, I didn't point out a
> specific location where remote-ids are to be defined to avoid
> problems like the one noted below.
>
> As I see it, we can defer it to some project / wiki page, or
> simply keep it in either of the schemas. Either way, we should keep
> both schemas reasonably up-to-date.
>
>> Besides, the PMS says the format of metadata.xml is described in
>> DTD. Even if we move to something else, doesn't metadata.dtd need
>> to be kept around until the PMS is amended?
>
> The key point PMS is making is 'outside the scope'. The specific
> location is just a minor problem, and it should be updated. I'll
> take a look at it.
>
> Oh, and +1 for the patch. If nobody complains and nobody beats me
> up to it, I'll commit it this weekend.
>

Please hold off the merge. I have found a few more things that require
fixing. I'll send a new patch series for review.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXJFJcAAoJEIT4AuXAiM4zcTMH+wcmYptb9MPo+7oSRx9ViS22
RVwUKiwdb55JmMHLXWu7ATQS+X1Jb5LqlNxIdpUz77zfP9+WFJJagJI9F1oi7a4s
e9wi7a1J3H812Xo2JcRZGnp95OX2O/c7dyXCcG5VMwB8kqW8JMykb+QmI0opm9s7
ePX0e1lQ3mhaMy8thTRBZK9a1cA+B86PWBtQRtQtb3leotD06DDnO0sZchLYsDYZ
A0qTDOZ+V5t9qJ0EtNJ8jb9T/7dz971noZUwdUDgkveU1Q+3o/IWBzZD765WaPYs
dSlWhn8linRLk3UhHe95+vCL0NAuLLdEEPIiNNrLRG3orz/gfbz7kl0E8+JNW58=
=DLlT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----