[Rpm-metadata] metadata script and sample

[seth vidal]

> Ximian ships a number of proprietary third-party packages with its
> professional version of its desktop.  Most of these include specific
> licenses and it's necessary for us to display them to the user (and
> require agreement) before the packages are installed.  So it's important
> to name them uniquely in such a way that we can identify them with some
> additional metadata (which for us is a separate file which contains the
> text of the licenses).  I would hate for those to be considered invalid
> under this format.
> 

> If we're using a structured format such as XML, I think we should
> probably use its structure instead of defining "/" as a convention. 
> That way validators can, well, validate it and the tag is truly a fully
> free-form field.  We could do either:
> 
> <package>
>   ...
>   <license>MPL</license>
>   <license>GPL</license>
>   ...
> </package>
> 
> or
> 
> <package>
>   ...
>   <licenses>
>      <license>MPL</license>
>      <license>GPL</license>
>   </licenses>
> </package>

Then should the formatting for the licensing field be something of a
packaging policy to try to attempt to umm, coerce other packagers into
using? I'm fine with this, in principle, I'm just trying to understand
it.

I know I am guilty of typing 'BSDish or Other' into the License field
before - and as much fun as it would to parse all the possible ways
someone may write an either/or license, I think I'll pass :)


-sv