[Rpm-metadata] metadata script and sample

[Jeff Licquia]

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 10:39, Darrin Thompson wrote:
> I'm comparing the metadata file against the Debian way as I understand 
> it. Real Debian developers should feel free to correct me.

See my previous message for some ideas.

> Could the following fields be punted into an RPM specific namespace?
> 
> license

I should point out that I missed this one in my list.

> url

I didn't include this one either.  It's not provided in Debian's current
metadata, but it might be a nice addition.  As things stand, though, it
should be optional or in the RPM namespace.

> Also, the following fields could possibly be mapped to deb fields:
> 
> packager - Maintainer
> requires - Depends
> provides - Provides
> conflicts - Conflicts
> obsoletes - Replaces

I'm not sure RPM Obsoletes and Debian Replaces mean exactly the same
things.

> However, do the semantics of the fields really match from the 
> perspective of apt/yum/etc.?

Not particularly.  Replaces <-> Depends isn't too difficult.

But see my idea for making the relationship type into an entity
attribute, like <dependency type="Replaces">.

> I like the idea of applying XML Base to the location field. If I were to 
> a Debian repository converter, I would probably do this:
> 
> <metadata xml:base="../../..">
>      <whatever href="pool/main/looks-just-like-Filename-field"/>
> </metadata>
> 
> That would retain mirror friendliness and not hose anybodys current 
> flexibility, no?

I see how something like that could work.  It makes sense, in that apt's
constraints on repository layout aren't forced on everybody else.

My concern regarding xml:base is the fact that, as demonstrated, it
seems to tie a repository metafile to a particular mirror.  Switching
mirrors would then require modifying the metafile, which would break any
signatures from the original vendor.  Also, forcing an absolute base
would break the format for CD-based repositories, since there's no
guarantee that your media will be mounted at any particular location.

Sure, you could always override xml:base, but then what's the point of
having it?