Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, 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
Attachment:
pgp82Z9hRAEW0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
