| 1 |
On 06/01/2017 06:09 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:18:22 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Jonas Stein <jstein@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> A space separated list of the corresponding debian packages should be |
| 6 |
>> written in the field |
| 7 |
>> <remote-id type="debian"> </remote-id> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why space separated? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Its already legal to specify the field multiple times, and it should |
| 12 |
> work better that way for consistency with things that can already parse |
| 13 |
> XML. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That way there's no need to put an additional parser inside our XML |
| 16 |
> extraction. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> <remote-id type="debian">libfoo</remote-id> |
| 19 |
> <remote-id type="debian">libfoo-debug</remote-id> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> No? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It also means general purpose XML formatting tools can keep it tidy, |
| 24 |
> _and_ sorted, without having to reinvent new tools. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
+1. Otherwise sounds good. But if we do this for Debian, will there be |
| 27 |
movement to add in package names for rpm-based distros? Arch? BSD? |
| 28 |
Slackware? Where do we draw the line? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Will developers be expected to treat this like a mandated element? If |
| 31 |
not, which team will have authority to touch package metadata to make |
| 32 |
this change? |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 36 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives