Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 445797
Review Request: erlsom - Support for XML Schema in Erlang
Last modified: 2009-11-07 10:17:03 EST
Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlsom.spec
SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlsom-1.2.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: Erlsom is a set of functions to deal with XML Schema (XSDs) in Erlang.
First you 'compile' the schema, and after that you can parse XML
documents that conform to the schema. The result is a structure of
Erlang records, based on the types that are defined by the Schema.
Or, the other way around, a structure of records can be translated
to an XML document.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to name this erlang-erlsom. The only erlang
package we have currently is erlang-esdl, so there's not much precedent, but
it's worth considering.
I don't think that's a good idea to resolve the lack ot Groups (and absence of
tags) in rpm (and therefore yum).
We should populate /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS instead of making silly prefixes
as erlang-something, fuse-something, ocaml-something, perl-something etc.
I think it worths to discuss in fedora-devel.
Well, I guess you're welcome to make that argument on fedora-devel if you wish.
Perhaps write up a proposal to change the existing guidelines which
specifically mention erlang addons. However, please note:
Fedora doesn't use groups. It doesn't matter what you put there; we don't care.
Your solution doesn't address issues like:
perl-LDAP, ruby-ldap, python-ldap, php-ldap
python-mecab, ruby-mecab, perl-mecab
So, honestly, please adhere to the current guidelines at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines or indicate how this
package is not covered by them. (I know pretty much zilch about erlang, so
maybe I'm missing something.)
So should I assume that you won't rename this package or provide some evidence
that the existing guidelines shouldn't apply? If not, I suppose this ticket
cannot progress and should be closed. I don't recall seeing any discussions on
fedora-devel, and no proposals for changing the guidelines have come before the
OK, closing this ticket.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 502991 ***