On 13 February 2012 21:35, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > This field wont be useful to users but to GUI applications that want > to show a pretty name instead of a weird PN. It would be fully > optional but it would have a standard syntax. You can't use > <longdesription> for that to extract the real package name because > each developer use this tag in a different way. Same for description. > The proposed tag would have a single strict syntax, that is a single > string just for the real package name so it would be easily > extractable. And of course it would be fully optional. After all, it > is just an addition in metadata.dtd >
I think it makes sense to also support there being multiple fields of this kind, because packages like libreoffice bundle multiple applications in the one. I'd propose a structure like <provides> <application name="Libreoffice Writer" binary="lowriter" description="A Word processing tool"> </application> .... </provides> You could have a proviso somewhere for multiple provides sections and each section being dependent on some atom match, but I think that's really over-engineering it. I thought about putting in stuff to allow for extra metadata for aliases and such to relate to what people are really looking for ( ie: people who are still wanting openoffice should get given libreoffice as a result ) but also smells of over-engineering and nasty messes. -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"
