[Rpm-metadata] metadata future enhancement

[seth vidal]

> Hello,
> 
> I just subscribed to the list, maybe I repeat what have been said before, 
> apologies in advance for that.  I agree that the metadata should keep 
> information whether an rpm is a binary or a patch rpm.  For suse the patch 
> rpms are provided in a seperate apt component (ending in prpm like srpm).
> 
> Something else: will it be possible that the metadata has a flag to mark an 
> rpm as a security update rpm?  A bit related to this, is it possible to 
> specify a reason (not the same as the rpm changelog) why the rpms is being 
> provided.  E.g. in case of the security update, the package provider may want 
> to provide information what security bug is fixed.

Hi to all the newcomers.
 Please read ALL of the archives and the sample files before posting.
Just to make sure we're not repeating things needlessly.

Thanks
-sv