gmane.linux.gentoo.devel

[2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Hi everyone

Since people are talking about metadata.xml again I'd like to present two
more GLEPs which will ease the process of auto-assigning bugs on one side
and make it a bit safer on the other side. Both of them are still in draft
state and if someone would like to contribute I'd be really happy.

One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':

    http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html

The idea is to reduce some of the redundency we have in the tree and to
explicitly write who the maintainer is. It logically depends on my former
GLEP about Gentoo's herd/team metastructure, but doesn't depend on it in a
technical sense.
Furthermore it makes it possible to define maintainer-proxy relationships.

It would make the auto-assignment process based on metadata.xml safer since
it makes it possible to validate the maintainer.
And this is where the second GLEP comes in:

    http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-xsd.html

In this GLEP I propose to switch from DTD to XSD for metadata.xml (and
herd.xml) to be able to validate content.
Even though some people like to argue that content should not be validated,
it makes sense to do it since the metadata.xml are not "prosa" but can be
interpreted as kind of database entries. Another reason is that
parent-child constraints can't be validated using DTD (especially GLEP 46
can't be properly implemented using DTD). But that's all written in the

(Continue reading)

headers

Luca Barbato | 4 Jul 17:58

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Tiziano Müller wrote:
> What do you think of them?

Both seem good, I'm looking forward to see them completed =)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> lists.gentoo.org mailing list

headers

Rémi Cardona | 4 Jul 19:24

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Tiziano Müller wrote:
> What do you think of them?

+1 on the first GLEP.

The second GLEP seems like a much better way of doing things, so +1 as 
well, but I am no xml expert :)

Cheers,

Rémi
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> lists.gentoo.org mailing list

headers

Robin H. Johnson | 4 Jul 21:44

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
> And this is where the second GLEP comes in:
>     http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-xsd.html
Don't remove the DTD DOCTYPE line. Leave it there.
Let simple tools be able to use the DTD to validate the well-formedness,
then upgrade to the XSD to check the actual semantics of the file.

--

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2 <at> gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

headers

Tiziano Müller | 4 Jul 22:03

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
>> And this is where the second GLEP comes in:
>>     http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-xsd.html
> Don't remove the DTD DOCTYPE line. Leave it there.
> Let simple tools be able to use the DTD to validate the well-formedness,
> then upgrade to the XSD to check the actual semantics of the file.
> 

Very good point, thanks. But the changes of GLEP 46 can't be validated
without allowing the "status" attribute for the toplevel maintainer. But I
guess we could do it as long as it's documented (and commented) correctly.

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> lists.gentoo.org mailing list

headers

Robin H. Johnson | 4 Jul 22:15

Re: Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:03:10PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
> >> And this is where the second GLEP comes in:
> >>     http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-xsd.html
> > Don't remove the DTD DOCTYPE line. Leave it there.
> > Let simple tools be able to use the DTD to validate the well-formedness,
> > then upgrade to the XSD to check the actual semantics of the file.
> Very good point, thanks. But the changes of GLEP 46 can't be validated
> without allowing the "status" attribute for the toplevel maintainer. But I
> guess we could do it as long as it's documented (and commented) correctly.
Sure. In other places where DTD->XSD migrations have been done, there
ARE still changes made to the DTD for new elements/attributes etc.

--

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2 <at> gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

headers

Robin H. Johnson | 4 Jul 21:47

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
> One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':
>     http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html
1. With the addition of <maintainer><team>cpp</team></maintainer>, why
do we still need <herd> elements?

2. "<gentoo:dev>dev-zero</gentoo:dev>". That's not possible to validate
sanely. The following would be better:
<maintainer><dev project="foobar">moodev</dev></maintainer>

With the default value of the 'project' attribute being 'gentoo'.

--

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2 <at> gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

headers

Tiziano Müller | 4 Jul 21:58

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
>> One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':
>>     http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html
> 1. With the addition of <maintainer><team>cpp</team></maintainer>, why
> do we still need <herd> elements?

I'd see the herd element as kind of tag which could be used to search for
packages (given the corresponding tools).

> 
> 2. "<gentoo:dev>dev-zero</gentoo:dev>". That's not possible to validate
> sanely. The following would be better:
> <maintainer><dev project="foobar">moodev</dev></maintainer>
> 
> With the default value of the 'project' attribute being 'gentoo'.
> 
That's another good solution. The possibility I mentioned is rather suitable
for others wanting to extend our metadata.xml format (and still be able to
validate the content of gentoo:dev against our list of devs).

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> lists.gentoo.org mailing list

headers

Robin H. Johnson | 4 Jul 22:18

Re: Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 09:58:21PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
> >> One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':
> >>     http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html
> > 1. With the addition of <maintainer><team>cpp</team></maintainer>, why
> > do we still need <herd> elements?
> I'd see the herd element as kind of tag which could be used to search for
> packages (given the corresponding tools).
Clarify the GLEP to mention this please?

> > 2. "<gentoo:dev>dev-zero</gentoo:dev>". That's not possible to validate
> > sanely. The following would be better:
> > <maintainer><dev project="foobar">moodev</dev></maintainer>
> > 
> > With the default value of the 'project' attribute being 'gentoo'.
> That's another good solution. The possibility I mentioned is rather suitable
> for others wanting to extend our metadata.xml format (and still be able to
> validate the content of gentoo:dev against our list of devs).
'gentoo:dev' isn't directly validable. It states element 'dev' in the
XML namespace of 'gentoo'. That's why I think that the the project
attribute variation would be more suitable, and also really easy for
other projects to handle.

When they are adding their own metadata.xml files, they can use an XSL
transform to add the explicit "project='gentoo'" for their own
metadata.xml files.

--

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy

(Continue reading)

headers

Tiziano Müller | 5 Jul 11:26

Re: Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 09:58:21PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
>> >> One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':
>> >>    
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html
>> > 1. With the addition of <maintainer><team>cpp</team></maintainer>, why
>> > do we still need <herd> elements?
>> I'd see the herd element as kind of tag which could be used to search for
>> packages (given the corresponding tools).
> Clarify the GLEP to mention this please?
Sure, will do.

> 
>> > 2. "<gentoo:dev>dev-zero</gentoo:dev>". That's not possible to validate
>> > sanely. The following would be better:
>> > <maintainer><dev project="foobar">moodev</dev></maintainer>
>> > 
>> > With the default value of the 'project' attribute being 'gentoo'.
>> That's another good solution. The possibility I mentioned is rather
>> suitable for others wanting to extend our metadata.xml format (and still
>> be able to validate the content of gentoo:dev against our list of devs).
> 'gentoo:dev' isn't directly validable. It states element 'dev' in the
> XML namespace of 'gentoo'. That's why I think that the the project
> attribute variation would be more suitable, and also really easy for
> other projects to handle.
> 
> When they are adding their own metadata.xml files, they can use an XSL
> transform to add the explicit "project='gentoo'" for their own

(Continue reading)

headers

Rémi Cardona | 5 Jul 10:01

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
>> One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':
>>      http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html
> 1. With the addition of<maintainer><team>cpp</team></maintainer>, why
> do we still need<herd>  elements?

The Gnome Team has 3 herds : gnome, gnome-mm and gnome-office. While 
officially we (us gnomies) are all maintainers of all 3 herds, having 3 
herds makes for better housekeeping.

And who knows, we could add one or two more herds once this GLEP is 
approved.

Cheers,

Rémi
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> lists.gentoo.org mailing list

headers

Tiziano Müller | 5 Jul 11:26

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Rémi Cardona wrote:

> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
>>> One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy':
>>>     
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html
>> 1. With the addition of<maintainer><team>cpp</team></maintainer>, why
>> do we still need<herd>  elements?
> 
> The Gnome Team has 3 herds : gnome, gnome-mm and gnome-office. While
> officially we (us gnomies) are all maintainers of all 3 herds, having 3
> herds makes for better housekeeping.
> 
> And who knows, we could add one or two more herds once this GLEP is
> approved.

Well, I'd like to point out that this GLEP does not propose any changes to
how herds and teams should be organized.
For that I've written this:
    http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-team.html

In the current metastructure you (the gnomies) don't form one team which
maintains the packages in the 3 herds gnome{,-mm,-office} but it's rather 3
teams (implicitly defined by the corresponding herds).
I know this sounds really nitpicking.

Now, to get the things done we have two possibilities:
i) do the changes to metadata.xml, herds.xml and create teams.xml (if the
council approves the GLEP once completed) and then adjust our metastructure

(Continue reading)

headers

Gilles Dartiguelongue | 6 Jul 12:24

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Le samedi 05 juillet 2008 à 10:01 +0200, Rémi Cardona a écrit :
> The Gnome Team has 3 herds : gnome, gnome-mm and gnome-office. While 
> officially we (us gnomies) are all maintainers of all 3 herds, having 3 
> herds makes for better housekeeping.
> 
you forgot gnome-accessibility :p

--

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva <at> gentoo.org>
Gentoo