[RFC] Packaging technology update

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 16:03 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > The <revision> components of the
> > <changelog> would generate both the RPM %changelog and the DocBook
> > revision log.
> 
> > Hm.. would a "role='rpm'" attribute on the <changelog>/<revision>
> > element suffice?  I could then just skip that entry when building the
> > DocBook history.
> 
> Well, I think having that sort of structure makes sense, in that some
> changes will be packaging only, and some changes will be document only.
> It probably makes sense for the document revision history to be in the
> RPM %changelog but not the other way around.  What if we were to use
> some of the XSL "if" statements to perform some of that magic, and have
> a hierarchy like this:
> 
>   <changelog>
>     <revision type="doc">
>       <date>2005-11-20</date>
>       <authorinitials>PWF</authorinitials>
>       <details>Some guff here</details>
>     </revision>
>     <revision type="rpm">
>       <date>Sat Nov 26 2005</date>
>       <packager>
>         <name>Paul W. Frields</name>
>         <email>stickster at gmail</email>
>       </packager>
>     </revision>
>   </changelog>

Maybe the following might prove easier:

<changelog>
  <docrevision>
    <date>2005-11-20</date>
    <authorinitials>PWF</authorinitials>
    <details>Some guff here</details>
  </docrevision>
  <pkgrevision>
    <date>Sat Nov 26 2005</date>
    <packager>
    <name>Paul W. Frields</name>
    <email>stickster at gmail</email>
    <details>Fixed OMF</details>
    <details>Did something else important</details>
  </pkgrevision>
</changelog>

Amazing what a little DTD reading will teach ya... I'm startin' to
understand some of this here XML guff.  Unfortunately while I was
composing this you had already improved the DTD!  

I'm wondering whether it makes sense to have these two elements be
different since they want for different data.  On the one hand, you
could just ask for a big author element with attributes for all of them,
as is the case now.  On the other hand, a RPM %changelog often has more
than one explanatory line for details.  I will try my hand at this one
if you agree, since I don't want to try your patience, and since I want
to see if I understand the concept well enough to DIY.  (DIM?)

I suppose, thanks to your display of XML skillz, we can even validate
this info during the build process to make sure nothing breaks!  Sweet.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20051126/1d9d4525/attachment.sig>