Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:55:41 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò > > Comments? +1 > Why don't we just encourage maintainers to add comments to > metadata.xml? Because XML is designed to not parse . If you want a machine to spit out a nice summary based on XML, you define and use something like a tag, not a language feature that was designed not to be parsed like . The abuse of tags has already forced bug wranglers to read the bare tags. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?
В Срд, 01/12/2010 в 02:00 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет: > I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel > strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' > metadata.xml. Comments inside are better suited for this task - you see/update notes as you edit ebuild. -- Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel >>> strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' >>> metadata.xml. >>> >> [snip] >>> >>> What I'm thinking of is having some sort of element, >>> but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that >>> repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full. >>> >>> Comments? >> >> Why don't we just encourage maintainers to add comments to >> metadata.xml? I'd love to have a new element if the data to be stored >> in that element would need to be parsed/categorized by external >> programs, but otherwise xml comments would work just fine. > > And have repoman scan/full print out all comments? I think > that's why Diego is suggesting a new XML tag. > That's just the DTD not getting validated. We can just change the DTD and repoman won't complain about the XML being invalid. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel >> strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' >> metadata.xml. >> > [snip] >> >> What I'm thinking of is having some sort of element, >> but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that >> repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full. >> >> Comments? > > Why don't we just encourage maintainers to add comments to > metadata.xml? I'd love to have a new element if the data to be stored > in that element would need to be parsed/categorized by external > programs, but otherwise xml comments would work just fine. And have repoman scan/full print out all comments? I think that's why Diego is suggesting a new XML tag. Matt
Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel > strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' > metadata.xml. > [snip] > > What I'm thinking of is having some sort of element, > but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that > repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full. > > Comments? Why don't we just encourage maintainers to add comments to metadata.xml? I'd love to have a new element if the data to be stored in that element would need to be parsed/categorized by external programs, but otherwise xml comments would work just fine. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
[gentoo-dev] Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?
Hi all, I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages' metadata.xml. I ask this because I was looking through some crypto based packages that require specific hardware that seems to have been maintained "at eye level" for quite a while, such as pcsc-lite. In this case, pcsc-lite has changed more than a few times its API, since it tries to follow what Microsoft implements in Windows, and as such the packages depending on it needed to actually follow closely. So for instance, for pcsc-lite 1.6.1 you need ccid 1.3.1, while for pcsc-lite 1.6.4 you need ccid 1.4.0 – older versions of ccid will fail with modern versions of pcsc-lite – but both eye-maintainers and arch teams didn't know that and while we _had_ a broken stable tree for x86 and amd64, we _still_ have broken stable trees for ppc/ppc64. What I'm thinking of is having some sort of element, but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full. Comments? -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
