Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>, spake thus:
I had an interesting thought about this, which is that rather than
having a "version" and "release" attribute, only one of which is
applicable for each type of revision, why not use a single "revnumber"
attribute? For docs, this would be a version change, and for new
package rolls it would be a release change. The latest version for the
doc and the RPM would always be the "revnumber" attribute of the topmost
role="doc" revision, and the RPM's release would always be the
"revnumber" attribute of the topmost role="rpm" revision.
Which ever is easier to parse.
Personally, I prefer the two-attribute approach because that seems
more parallel to the actual update process: just change the version
and release, similar to what would be done to manually construct the
SPEC file. The 'role="rpm"' seems a bit artificial to me; perhaps
it's just NIH syndrome.
The only possible issue I see in the commit you made to rpm-info.dtd
this evening is in requiring copyright holders to be workers. For
example, Red Hat, Inc. and the Fedora Foundation won't fit that type of
element, although one or both of them will certainly be copyright
holders on several of our works. If we're not going to keep it as
PCDATA, perhaps using subelements (worker|corp) might work. I think the
KISS method, though, might dictate punting this one.
Oops, I forgot about corporate ownership. OK, I'll revert it.
/me updates CVS
Done!
Happy New Year!