Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus: > I had an interesting thought about this, which is that rather than > having a "version" and "release" attribute, only one of which is > applicable for each type of revision, why not use a single "revnumber" > attribute? For docs, this would be a version change, and for new > package rolls it would be a release change. The latest version for the > doc and the RPM would always be the "revnumber" attribute of the topmost > role="doc" revision, and the RPM's release would always be the > "revnumber" attribute of the topmost role="rpm" revision. Which ever is easier to parse. Personally, I prefer the two-attribute approach because that seems more parallel to the actual update process: just change the version and release, similar to what would be done to manually construct the SPEC file. The 'role="rpm"' seems a bit artificial to me; perhaps it's just NIH syndrome. > The only possible issue I see in the commit you made to rpm-info.dtd > this evening is in requiring copyright holders to be workers. For > example, Red Hat, Inc. and the Fedora Foundation won't fit that type of > element, although one or both of them will certainly be copyright > holders on several of our works. If we're not going to keep it as > PCDATA, perhaps using subelements (worker|corp) might work. I think the > KISS method, though, might dictate punting this one. Oops, I forgot about corporate ownership. OK, I'll revert it. /me updates CVS Done! Happy New Year!
Attachment:
pgpZ5T4Mc7UZy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
