[Rpm-metadata] new script, another update

[Jeff Johnson]

seth vidal wrote:

>Hi All,
> Script here:
>http://linux.duke.edu/~skvidal/metadata/rpm-md-dump.py
> takes a baseurl as the first arg and a list of rpms.
>
>output file is here:
>http://linux.duke.edu/~skvidal/metadata/rpm-metadata4.xml
>
>I've kept deps, prov, conf, obs, inside <format> b/c it seems cleaner
>and I buried <entry> inside the rpm ns.
>
>I like the idea of having the multiple namespaces b/c then if someone
>wants to add a pkg format in we might have to shuffle less around in the
>common namespace specification.
>  
>

Hmmm, there hasn't been a new pkg format of significance in years. 
Whatever ...

I again again again suggest associating N with EVRF. I can think of no 
context
where all of NEVRF are not associated as unit. But perhaps I have missed 
something ...

I also seem to see trailing blank in
   <rpm:group>System Environment/Base </rpm:group>
I do not know whether that is your script or rpm's tag value. No matter
what, the trailing space should be dealt with.

You might also consider mapping rpm "foo(bar)" dependencies into
different XML name space, but that might be premature. IMHO, there
is little need to carry rpmlib(...) or config(...) dependencies around, and
a real need for "perl(...)" CPAN dependencies to be cleanly split out for
seperate vetting, but that's above and beyond the original depsolver scope
of rpm-metadata XML format.

But these are just nit-picks, and can be lived with.

>comments/hatemail etc.
>
>if I don't hear anything I'll write the parser for this format and add
>in the file provides for the lists of files we think are useful (I think
>we listed those earlier [ *bin/*, /etc/*, /usr/lib/sendmail ])
>
>Then work on optional/required sets for the common area.
>
>cool?
>

Very. Looks quite good, thank you.

73 de Jeff