>>>>> "CW" == Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: CW> What's the ultimate problem you want to solve with that metadata? The recurring issue: users and upstream want to know how we're patching the software we distribute, and it's rather difficult to figure that out. PackageDB gets them to CVS, but reading specfiles or poring over a CVS listing of patches is a bit difficult for many. Even without such metadata it's possible to present a list of patches which are applied, and I intend to pursue that in any case. CW> I'm worried that if we require extensive/structured metadata, CW> people won't do it. I hadn't intended to require it, although it's certainly a topic for discussion. I had only intended to make it possible to present such data in an accessible manner. Even in the simple case, it's possible to extract comment lines from the specfile above the Patch: lines and treat them as comments. But structured metadata enables us to do things like present links for the patches to the upstream trackers, to the CVE pages for security issues fixed by the patches, etc. - J< -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
