Uttered "Paul W. Frields" stickster@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!