Packaging progress

[Tommy Reynolds]

Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:

> I had an interesting thought about this, which is that rather than
> having a "version" and "release" attribute, only one of which is
> applicable for each type of revision, why not use a single "revnumber"
> attribute?  For docs, this would be a version change, and for new
> package rolls it would be a release change.  The latest version for the
> doc and the RPM would always be the "revnumber" attribute of the topmost
> role="doc" revision, and the RPM's release would always be the
> "revnumber" attribute of the topmost role="rpm" revision.

Which ever is easier to parse.  

Personally, I prefer the two-attribute approach because that seems
more parallel to the actual update process: just change the version
and release, similar to what would be done to manually construct the
SPEC file.  The 'role="rpm"' seems a bit artificial to me; perhaps
it's just NIH syndrome.
 
> The only possible issue I see in the commit you made to rpm-info.dtd
> this evening is in requiring copyright holders to be workers.  For
> example, Red Hat, Inc. and the Fedora Foundation won't fit that type of
> element, although one or both of them will certainly be copyright
> holders on several of our works.  If we're not going to keep it as
> PCDATA, perhaps using subelements (worker|corp) might work.  I think the
> KISS method, though, might dictate punting this one.

Oops, I forgot about corporate ownership.  OK, I'll revert it.
/me updates CVS
Done!

Happy New Year!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20051230/babb937d/attachment.sig>