[Rpm-metadata] xml update

[Jeff Johnson]

seth vidal wrote:

>>Then you better get your RFE for adding header extensions for P/E/S/R 
>>tags mapped
>>onto existing apt-rpm files today. All I need is someone to blame for 
>>the request, I
>>can/will have an implementation for you in Fedora by, say, Monday.
>>    
>>
>
>huh? I'm talking about this metadata format for this list - not for rpm.
>  
>

You asked where the data is going to come from. Since I've looked at 
your code,
I knows what you need from rpm-python and, ultimately, rpmlib.

You stated that you had a time constraint of FC2, I'm offering to beat 
that deadline
if you wish.

Or just don't make the RFE, less work, fine by me.

>Look if you want P/E/S/R you implement it. I didn't ask for it - I just
>said we need a way to make sure we deal with packages that don't have
>that information in their headers.
>
>  
>
>>There's also a need to stand back and look with jaundiced eye exactly 
>>what has been
>>suggested today. Bloat is like waist size, once you achieve, say, 36", 
>>you can never ever
>>fit into 32" pants again.
>>    
>>
>
>as adrian said yesterday on the rpm-python list - I'm lost by this
>metaphor - is this good or bad? You suggested E/S/R.
>  
>

Bloat is always bad. A considerable number of features got 
suggested/added to common
metadata today, it's entirely unclear (to me anyways) whether the 
suggestions are
good, bad, or ugly, and I have no clue at all what you are going to add.

I look forward to seeing your next release of the proposed XML format.

73 de Jeff