From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CF813800E for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D18C8E050E; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6158E0160 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: iksaif) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EC9F1B4006 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qcpx40 with SMTP id x40so1468545qcp.40 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 04:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.189.83 with SMTP id dd19mr12834810qab.45.1344686150043; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 04:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.27.35 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 04:55:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50256B3D.3040101@flameeyes.eu> References: <5024EC6C.3070300@anche.no> <1344600203.17434.3.camel@kanae> <20120810162127.493a455a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <50256B3D.3040101@flameeyes.eu> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:55:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI in metadata.xml From: Corentin Chary To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ab5cd8df-25a2-4f65-8833-ae5ffac340ec X-Archives-Hash: 410a555cf6eae16539d66e04741abc5b On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Diego Elio Petten=C3=B2 wrote: > On 10/08/2012 13:05, Corentin Chary wrote: >> Right, our proposal is not here to replace SRC_URI, it's here to fix >> the cases where SRC_URI can't be sanely used to guess new upstream >> versions (strange mangling rules, unbrowsable directories, etc...). > > Yes I guess Jeroen was just saying why we shouldn't abandon it as Gilles > proposed. > > FWIW for the rest it feels right to me. Although this starts to add up > to the reasons why at least metadata.xml should be validated by schema, > and not DTD. Maybe .. We plan to use to avoid editing metadata.dtd (for now). What do you think about format propositions ? Current format looks like what was given in the examples, but mgorny feels that something more xmlish would be better. --=20 Corentin Chary http://xf.iksaif.net