[Rpm-metadata] metadata script and sample

[seth vidal]

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

this is just an md5sum of the package at the moment - surely that's an
acceptable thing for deb packages too :)

> license
Do debian packages not list the license?

> vendor 
an optional field even in rpms.

> group
<nod>

> BuildHost (presumably you meant build-host?)
no - I think I meant buildhost - the system it was built on.

> header-range
<nod>

> color
How are debian packages going to deal with 64bit/32bit archs (just
curious)


> url
does debian not store a general url for the package?



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

Do the caps matter somewhere or are you just listing what things are the
same?


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

How do you mean, I'm not sure I under the complete meaning.


> 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?

that was brought up earlier - look in the archives. Daniel Veillard
suggested otherwise to not put the xml:base at the start of the metadata
b/c then you couldn't have any changes w/i any packages internally - the
idea being - there may be certain systems that can reference off-site
packages - this was a requirement/request from the ximian people iirc.


Thanks,
-sv