[RFC] Packaging technology update

[Tommy Reynolds]

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

> - I wonder if it would be wise to have a change to the DTD which offers
> a 'release' in addition to 'version' for a 'revision', such that:
> 
>   <revision date="Sat Nov 25 2005" version="0.1.3" release="1">
> 
> would be allowed.  The latest release number would be the thing that
> appears in the %release tag.  The 'release' element that falls directly
> inside 'rpm-info' would be eliminated.  There is always a chance that
> things have to be repackaged because an OMF or .desktop file is updated
> -- or even the spec template -- but not the doc content, which calls for
> a release bump, not a version bump.  Is such a thing possible, Tommy?

My thought was that the /rpm-info/release value would represent the
RPM packaging release cycle.  The <revision> components of the
<changelog> would generate both the RPM %changelog and the DocBook
revision log.

Hm.. would a "role='rpm'" attribute on the <changelog>/<revision>
element suffice?  I could then just skip that entry when building the
DocBook history.
 
> Just some quick ideas...  I'm not really conversant with a lot of XSLT
> stuff so I may piddle around with this, but not expecting great things
> as a result. ;-)

Neither am I, but if you can help get the prototype SPEC, OMF, et.
al., files right I think I can mangle the XSLT stuff enough to get
by.

Cheers
-------------- 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/20051126/0537ded1/attachment.sig>