[Rpm-metadata] xml update

[Jeff Licquia]

On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 04:02, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>     - it's a bit of a shame that the provides and requires really
>       can't be shared, but well maybe that reflect the differences
>       in semantic of both formats :-\

There doesn't seem to be any reason why they couldn't be shared with an
understanding that Requires -> Depends for Debian.  OTOH, I tend to like
the elegance of all relationships being in the same namespace, rather
than having some in toplevel namespace and others in format namespace.

Making the dep type an entity attribute (like <relationship
type="requires>) would possibly solve the problem.  It also makes it
more explicit that the relationship types are variants on a theme rather
than totally different, and that parsing of all types can be shared.

But, to be clear, I think the current relationship format is very
workable, and don't object to it.