[Rpm-metadata] Debian metadata (was Re: format misc)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 23:08, seth vidal wrote:
> > A few notes:
> > 
> >  - The <format> namespace is obviously bogus.
> 
> Do you mean you just made it up or it is bogus in that you don't like
> it?

I mean that I just made it up.  Also, www.example.com is probably a bad
source for namespacing.  If the other problems with my example get
resolved, then I'd probably want to think about the best namespace URI
to use.

> >  - <requires> is <depends> here.  This isn't me being stubborn; it's
> > just more consistent with <predepends>.  Do we want to keep this as
> > <requires>, or is it OK for Debian repos to use <depends>?  If we use
> > <requires>, does RPM have something equivalent to Debian Pre-Depends? 
> > Pre-Requires, maybe?  (Pre-Depends is like Depends, except that the
> > depended-upon packages must be fully installed and configured before
> > this package can start installation.)
> 
> Making requires == depends for rpm doesn't bother me - but how about
> making an optional attribute of <depends type="pre"> or some such thing?

I'm not too concerned either way.  Like I said, my decision was rather
arbitrary.  "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  Making the
little switch from Depends to Requires is trivial.

But see below.

> >  - I've added Debian's additional dependency types; a full list is in
> > the script.  I added them to the top level, not to <format>.
> 
> I think those would be more appropriate inside <format> unless rpm is
> going to add suggests suddenly (which I doubt)

For both of these, I think this is actually a good argument for making
the dependency type an attribute, as in <relationship type="depends">. 
Darrin's namespace proposal also strikes me as a sane alternative.

So, I guess I'll put my marble on Darrin's proposal for now, and if that
gets shot down, we can figure out something else.

> >  - For logical or, I've added a new <orentry> tag that can contain
> > <entry> tags.  If anyone has a better idea for representing this, I'm
> > all ears.
> 
> I'm not sure what to do with that.
> 
> do the orentries only exist for suggests? If so then that is more reason
> to put suggests inside format.

Debian can express or-relationships in any dependency type, including
Depends.

The specific format of or-relationships isn't really important to me;
just that they can be expressed.  If you can come up with a way to
express them that is minimally intrusive to the RPM side of the house,
I'll likely adopt it without complaint.

I'll also point out that Darrin's namespace proposal would allow Debian
people to add <orentry> at will without disrupting the RPM side at all.