At 2:30 PM -0600 11/10/05, Les Mikesell wrote: >On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 14:14, Nat Gross wrote: >> > >> >> > >Something along the lines of xml schemas/dtd's. > >> Fair enough. Hope to follow up on this soon. > >The problem is not _how_ version information is >represented but the fact that there is no single authority >to assign the names and numbers or a hierarchy of delegation. >Imagine what DNS would be like if anyone could just use >anything they want. That's how RPM names and versions >work now so there is no reason to expect a high level manager >to work with ones where different people built them. Currently, nothing uses the absent repo source info, so no purpose would be served by having organized repo names in packages. If /something/ started using repo source info, say something in wide use such as yum, then there would be a reason to have it. Only a few repo maintainers need to be persuaded to put names on their rpms in order to have most rpms labeled, not the horde of packagers. Repos already have standards to follow, for packaging, versioning, whatever. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
