On Sun, 1 May 2016 18:42:54 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek <gokt...@binghamton.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Michał Górny: > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 02:36:18 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek > > <gokt...@binghamton.edu> wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> Michał Górny: > >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:41:06 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek > >>> <gokt...@binghamton.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > >>>> > >>>> Brian Dolbec: > >>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:39:05 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek > >>>>> <gokt...@binghamton.edu> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> --- metadata.dtd | 5 +---- 1 file changed, 1 > >>>>>> insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/metadata.dtd b/metadata.dtd index > >>>>>> 7626a57..b608852 100644 --- a/metadata.dtd +++ > >>>>>> b/metadata.dtd @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ <!ATTLIST catmetadata > >>>>>> pkgname CDATA ""> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <!-- Metadata for a package --> -<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (maintainer|natural-name|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* > >>>>>> )> +<!ELEMENT pkgmetadata ( > >>>>>> (maintainer|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* )> > >>>>>> <!ATTLIST pkgmetadata pkgname CDATA ""> <!-- One tag for > >>>>>> each maintainer of a package, multiple allowed--> @@ > >>>>>> -13,9 +13,6 @@ explicit type) for Gentoo maintainers is > >>>>>> prohibited. --> <!ATTLIST maintainer type > >>>>>> (person|project|unknown) "unknown"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - <!-- Natural name for package, example: LibreOffice > >>>>>> (for app-office/libreoffice) --> - <!ELEMENT > >>>>>> natural-name (#PCDATA) > >>>>>>> - <!-- A long description of the package in freetext--> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> <!ELEMENT longdescription (#PCDATA|pkg|cat)* > > >>>>> > >>>>> Isn't this almost obsolete? it's now xmlschema... And I > >>>>> hope to have the new repoman with it out this weekend :) > >>>> > >>>> Does GLEP 68 explicitly declare metadata.dtd obsolete? I see > >>>> that the example metadata.xml on the GLEP is missing DOCTYPE, > >>>> are we getting rid of those too? > >>> > >>> No, and I don't know. > >>> > >>> metadata.dtd is still required by many tools, and as such it > >>> makes sense to keep it. However, we may want to put some > >>> warning that it's not very strict, and allows major structural > >>> violations due to technical limitations. > >>> > >> After a discussion with ulm on IRC, we agreed that the following > >> makes sense: "the format of the metadata is defined in GLEP 68. > >> the syntax is defined in metadata.dtd. The xml-schema can be used > >> for stricter validation checks." If you have no objections, I > >> will update devmanual based on this description. > > > > What is the precise difference between 'format' and 'syntax' here? > > I'm no native English speaker, and I don't see any obvious split > > of responsibility between the two here, and I'm pretty sure this > > will be quite confusing for other people as well. > > > I admit that it is hard to make a clear distinction. When I look at > the GLEPs replaced by GLEP68, I see that they propose a change for > metadata.xml and explain how that affects metadata.dtd. GLEP34 has > "The DTD file would need to be updated to include the <catmetadata> > element.", GLEP46 explicitly says "metadata.dtd should allow the use > of a upstream tag in metadata.xml.", GLEP56 points to #199788 which > required DTD to be patched. GLEP68 is rather vague as to how > metadata.dtd is affected. It doesn't say whether it should be updated > or if it has any role at all. > > GLEP68 provides a single human readable specification for the metadata > format. In that respect, however, the DTD along with the comments in > it is just as expressive, if not better: a developer can read through > the DTD and learn all the information contained in the GLEP, plus the > remote-id values which are not part of the specification for reasons > you stated earlier. And that was the reason why I used the term > "syntax": the DTD lists all the allowed elements, attributes, and > values for the metadata that should be used in conformance with the GLEP It's not better. As you can have seen, numerous developers were adding incorrect attributes and sub-elements to downstream and upstream <maintainer/>s based on DTD. The comments there didn't help. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpGtJ8YzBnGl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
