[gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Marcelo Góes]

Fellow Gentooers,

Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
information to be included in metadata.xml:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt

It is authored by ciaranm and me (vanquirius).
Please comment :-).

Cheers,
Marcelo

--
Marcelo Góes
marcelogoes@gmail.com
vanquirius@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:11:46 -0200 Marcelo Góes <vanquirius@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
| information to be included in metadata.xml:
| 
| http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt

Should show up in nicely rendered HTML here within an hour or three:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0046.html

Unless I screwed up, of course.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Stefan Schweizer]

That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
keep this info out of the sync-tree?
I do not see why this is necessary to be in the tree - we can do fine
with a webbased database for that.

- Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 402 bytes --]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
<genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
| keep this info out of the sync-tree?

Learn to use the rsync exclude list.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Lares Moreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> 
> Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> 
I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well
and has _no_ use for it.  

There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.  

-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
lares/irc.freenode.net                 |
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |          Encrypted Mail Preferred
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:59:34AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> 
> Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
metadata.xml is/will be required someday due to long description being 
stuck in there.

Excluding it isn't incredibly useful in light of that.

Personally... would rather see maintainer info stuck somewhere else, 
but not something I'm going to fight tooth and nail over.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Dan Meltzer]

On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> > <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> > | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> >
> > Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> >
> I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well
> and has _no_ use for it.
>
> There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.

The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time
This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any
time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being
a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for
someone to write a web database and pushing that through.

We have metadata.xml's, why not use them?
>
> --
> Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
> lares/irc.freenode.net                 |
> Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
> Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |          Encrypted Mail Preferred
> Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDsJPRfZRIPg1Gu24RAuwnAJ4uLZw5Vu2dHM1pe2xSdiGwvPXH7wCg2yCt
> Hpb7QrVs/RJ5Tiz4iyI0ipM=
> =k3qI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> > > <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> > > | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> > >
> > > Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> > >
> > I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well
> > and has _no_ use for it.
> >
> > There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.
> 
> The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time

Complaints about both actually- try sync'ing on a crap connection.  
Rsync doesn't scale well the larger the dataset gets (the fact it 
still performs well is a testament to it being mostly a damn fine 
tool).  We've got at least a 2.4mB overhead just for doing 
filelist/chksum transfers; that's not getting into pulling the 
_actual_ updates.


> This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any
> time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being
> a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for
> someone to write a web database and pushing that through.

Quicker balanced against proper; debate right now is if it's the 
proper place to do this (thus address that concern) :)


> We have metadata.xml's, why not use them?

We have ebuilds, why don't we stick it there?  Arguement doesn't work 
well there ;)

(No I'm not advocating tagging this into ebuilds btw).
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Dale]

Lares Moreau wrote:

>  
>
>There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.  
>
>  
>

As a dial-up user, I may be one of them.  Sorry.  It takes me 30 to 45 
minutes to sync.  That's if it has few changes.  It took almost a hour 
when KDE was upgraded.  This does NOT include downloading any packages 
just the sync.


Dale
:-)

-- 
To err is human, I'm most certainly human.

I have four rigs:

1:  Home built; Abit NF7 ver 2.0 w/ AMD 2500+ CPU, 1GB of ram and right now two 80GB hard drives.  Named Smoker
2:  Home built; Iwill KK266-R w/ AMD 1GHz CPU, 256MBs of ram and a 4GB drive.  Named Swifty
3:  Home built; Gigabyte GA-71XE4 w/ 800MHz CPU, 224MBs of ram and a 2.5GB drive.  Named Pokey
4:  Compaq Proliant 6000 Server w/ Quad 200MHz CPUs, 128MBs of ram and a 4.3GB SCSI drive.  Named Putput

All run Gentoo Linux, all run folding. #1 is my desktop, 2, 3, and 4 are set up as servers.  

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Marius Mauch]

Stefan Schweizer wrote:

>That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
>keep this info out of the sync-tree?
>I do not see why this is necessary to be in the tree - we can do fine
>with a webbased database for that.
>  
>
The additional time is not significant as this will be a gradual change 
and the added information will rarely change, so the actual effect on 
sync data is minimal. Having a secondary source of information would be 
a much bigger problem.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:07:29 -0700 Lares Moreau
<lares.moreau@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
| > <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we
| > | please keep this info out of the sync-tree?
| > 
| > Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
| > 
| I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well
| and has _no_ use for it.  

The average user has no need for any of the comments in ebuilds either.
Should we remove them? That'll save us 7.5MBytes.

Ooh! And indenting! Currently, we're wasting over half a megabyte in
ebuilds alone with useless indents.

Finally, we can shave off an entire megabyte by removing KDE from the
tree.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Marius Mauch]

Marcelo Góes wrote:

>Fellow Gentooers,
>
>Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
>information to be included in metadata.xml:
>
>http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
>
>It is authored by ciaranm and me (vanquirius).
>Please comment :-).
>  
>
Will those new tags support the "restrict" attribute?

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Dan Meltzer]

On 12/26/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> > > > <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> > > > | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> > > >
> > > > Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> > > >
> > > I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well
> > > and has _no_ use for it.
> > >
> > > There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.
> >
> > The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time
>
> Complaints about both actually- try sync'ing on a crap connection.
> Rsync doesn't scale well the larger the dataset gets (the fact it
> still performs well is a testament to it being mostly a damn fine
> tool).  We've got at least a 2.4mB overhead just for doing
> filelist/chksum transfers; that's not getting into pulling the
> _actual_ updates.
>
>
> > This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any
> > time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being
> > a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for
> > someone to write a web database and pushing that through.
>
> Quicker balanced against proper; debate right now is if it's the
> proper place to do this (thus address that concern) :)
>
>
> > We have metadata.xml's, why not use them?
>
> We have ebuilds, why don't we stick it there?  Arguement doesn't work
> well there ;)

Because its package specific, not version specific :)

This is one of the reasons metadata came about in the first place.
>
> (No I'm not advocating tagging this into ebuilds btw).
> ~harring
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:43:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Will those new tags support the "restrict" attribute?

Is restrict something that's in use and working, or did it never get
off the drawing board?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Marius Mauch]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:43:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
>wrote:
>| Will those new tags support the "restrict" attribute?
>
>Is restrict something that's in use and working, or did it never get
>off the drawing board?
>
Well, it's listed in metadata.dtd, so any package *could* use it. I 
currently don't have a tree anywhere near me to check if it is actually 
used nor do I know if any metadata.xml related tools understand it 
correctly.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Julien Allanos (dju`)]

Le Mardi 27 Décembre 2005 02:52, Dan Meltzer a écrit :
> On 12/26/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > > On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> > > > >
> > > > > <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we
> > > > > | please keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> > > > >
> > > > > Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> > > >
> > > > I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as
> > > > well and has _no_ use for it.
> > > >
> > > > There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.
> > >
> > > The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time
> >
> > Complaints about both actually- try sync'ing on a crap connection.
> > Rsync doesn't scale well the larger the dataset gets (the fact it
> > still performs well is a testament to it being mostly a damn fine
> > tool).  We've got at least a 2.4mB overhead just for doing
> > filelist/chksum transfers; that's not getting into pulling the
> > _actual_ updates.
> >
> > > This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any
> > > time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being
> > > a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for
> > > someone to write a web database and pushing that through.
> >
> > Quicker balanced against proper; debate right now is if it's the
> > proper place to do this (thus address that concern) :)
> >
> > > We have metadata.xml's, why not use them?
> >
> > We have ebuilds, why don't we stick it there?  Arguement doesn't work
> > well there ;)
>
> Because its package specific, not version specific :)

Are the $HOMEPAGE, $DESCRIPTION, $LICENSE or even $SRC_URI package or version 
specific then?
-- 
Julien Allanos (dju`)
Gentoo Linux Developer (web-apps)
GnuPG key: 0x1EC6C6C2

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:43, Julien Allanos (dju`) wrote:
> Are the $HOMEPAGE, $DESCRIPTION

possibly

> $LICENSE or even $SRC_URI

this answer should be pretty obvious, of course these values could change 
drastically across even revisions, let alone versions

> package or version specific then? 

i'm going to assume you using the word "package" here was a brain fart as all 
values in an ebuild will be different across packages
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[John Myers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --]

On Monday 26 December 2005 16:11, Marcelo Góes wrote:
> ``maintainer`` can contain the tags ``name`` and ``email``, indicating the
> person/organization responsible for upstream maintainership of the package.

What if upstream is more than one person, but less than an organization? What 
if there is more than one upstream such as for gentoo-sources, where the 
maintainer of each of the patchsets could be considered an upstream?

> ``remote-id`` should specify a type of package identification tracker and
> the identification that corresponds to the package in question.
> ``remote-id`` should make it easier to index information like its
> identification in freshmeat or its cpan identification.
if this is to be subject to automated processing, shouldn't there be a 
registry of valid "type" values maintaining a definition of what the value of 
the element corresponds to for each type?

-- 
# 
# electronerd, the electronerdian from electronerdia
#

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Grobian]

On 26-12-2005 22:11:46 -0200, Marcelo Ges wrote:
> Fellow Gentooers,
> 
> Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
> information to be included in metadata.xml:
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt

using http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0046.html

The bugs-to tag can hold either an email address or URL.  Not a big
issue, but why not make it an URI, such that an email address is written
as "mailto:foo@bar.bar"?  Using an URI gives a nice specified format
(already including the http(s) which you require) and should go with
regular URI parsers.

Given the URI thing, maybe it can be useful to define the changelog tag
to have an URI as well, since some upstreams ship the changelog with the
sources and don't put them on the web.  In such case you might want to
use a "file://" URI to point to the file on disk when installed?  I
realise this is tricky.

Not clear from the text, but I take it from the example that remote-id
has an attribute named "type" which points to some source.  Is there a
reason to make that an attribute, instead of a tag?  Also, the remote-id
tag in the example has a TEXT node which apparently is the id, but needs
some information in order to track it.  Taking your SourceForge example:
  <remote-id type="sourceforge">adium</remote-id>
Usually for SourceForge means that "adium" in this case is the "UNIX
project name", hence an URL such as
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/adium
points to the project's SourceForge home, while
  http://adium.sourceforge.net/
points to the project's home page.  It's not clear for me where this is
different from the home page URL in the ebuild itself.  I don't know if
FreshMeat can be a real project home.  What I wanted to say, where is
the logic stored on how to make this id into some resource?  And if you
store that logic somewhere, why not in the XML structure?  Any reason to
use an id, and not for instance an URI to the remote 'developers'
homepage/resource?

Observation: the added data is mainly targetted at developers, not
users.  Given the ongoing discussion, this might be an interesting side
note.  In an overlay I'm currently keeping 'portnotes' in metadata.xml,
which basically give us developers a quick look on what was necessary to
port an ebuild.  This is by no means interesting for a regular user, and
we put it in metadata.xml because that allows to group the portnotes,
since XML is a bit more structured than a changelog.  For the sake of
rsyncs/speed/storage/whatever, perhaps this purely targetted at
developers information should be put in a separate file, which is by
default excluded in the rsync?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:06, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:43:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
> >
> >wrote:
> >| Will those new tags support the "restrict" attribute?
> >
> >Is restrict something that's in use and working, or did it never get
> >off the drawing board?
>
> Well, it's listed in metadata.dtd, so any package *could* use it. I
> currently don't have a tree anywhere near me to check if it is actually
> used nor do I know if any metadata.xml related tools understand it
> correctly.

It has been in for a long while. If there are metadata.xml related tools for 
which it makes sense to understand it, they are broken if they don't. Adding 
the attribute on these tags should not put a problem.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 01:11, Marcelo Góes wrote:
> Fellow Gentooers,
>
> Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
> information to be included in metadata.xml:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
>
> It is authored by ciaranm and me (vanquirius).
> Please comment :-).

What is the reason for having an upstream tag? Wouldn't it be easier to just 
name the tags properly. And what about just using a general attribute tag 
like <meta name="upstreammaint" value="foo@bar.com"/>

Besides this, is it really useful to put this information in the metadata.xml 
file?

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

[Marcelo Góes]

On 12/27/05, John Myers <electronerd@electronerdia.net> wrote:
> What if upstream is more than one person, but less than an organization? What
> if there is more than one upstream such as for gentoo-sources, where the
> maintainer of each of the patchsets could be considered an upstream?

I don't see a problem with having multiple "name" and "email" fields.
Perhaps there could be an additional "description" tag to discriminate
what each person is responsible for.

> if this is to be subject to automated processing, shouldn't there be a
> registry of valid "type" values maintaining a definition of what the value of
> the element corresponds to for each type?

Yes. Thus far, I have in mind freshmeat, sourceforge and cpan, but
other types can be added later.

On 12/27/05, Grobian <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The bugs-to tag can hold either an email address or URL.  Not a big
> issue, but why not make it an URI, such that an email address is written
> as "mailto:foo@bar.bar"?  Using an URI gives a nice specified format
> (already including the http(s) which you require) and should go with
> regular URI parsers.

Sounds good enough.

> Given the URI thing, maybe it can be useful to define the changelog tag
> to have an URI as well, since some upstreams ship the changelog with the
> sources and don't put them on the web.  In such case you might want to
> use a "file://" URI to point to the file on disk when installed?  I
> realise this is tricky.

Hmmm... I'm not sure about this one. Not only is it tricky, but the
whole point of this GLEP is to facilitate the finding of online
up-to-date information. If there is no online changelog, I think it
may be better just to ommit this field.

> What I wanted to say, where is
> the logic stored on how to make this id into some resource?  And if you
> store that logic somewhere, why not in the XML structure?  Any reason to
> use an id, and not for instance an URI to the remote 'developers'
> homepage/resource?

Yes, there is a logic. I think it is easier to maintain an external
list, such as we do with "thirdpartymirrors". The point of listing
alternative resources is that they may include features not provided
by upstream itself. For example, an announce list that lets one know
when a new version has been released.

On 12/27/05, Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> What is the reason for having an upstream tag?

Aggregate useful upstream information in one place.

> Wouldn't it be easier to just name the tags properly.

How?

> And what about just using a general attribute tag
> like <meta name="upstreammaint" value="foo@bar.com"/>

It's not bad, but isn't it better to have it in the structured way we
suggest? It's graphically easier to read/write.

Cheers! I'll be back the first week of January :-).
Marcelo

--
Marcelo Góes
marcelogoes@gmail.com
vanquirius@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

[Curtis Napier]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
> <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
> | keep this info out of the sync-tree?
> 
> Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
> 

FAQ:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-356536-highlight-rsync+exclude.html
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list