I would like to add support for the "minimal module metainfo" I was
talking about earlier.
I looked at the Annotations stuff but as I see it, these things does not
get written to the external representation of the module.

Henrik - should/could we add this to the definition file or should we
put it somewhere else, perhaps in a third, "noncompulsory" file? Was the
annotations only meant to live in the image?

And since noone reacted on my list of fields I will go for what I
posted. :-)

regards, Göran

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> We need to agree on a minimal set of metainformation on modules.
> It should be minimal but also rather easily extensible.
> The metainformation should be included in the module (at least when on
> disk).
> Perhaps this information can be added by using the Annotations mechanism
> - not sure.
> This is what I have come up with sofar:
> 
> ---
> The first two are already in the Module class:
> Name: The name of the module.
> Version: The version of the module.
> 
> Then we could add these as a "meta card" using annotations:
> Summary: Short oneliner description.
> Description: Longer textual description.
> Homepage: Url to homepage of module if applicable.
> License: Url to license. Mandatory.
> Author: Name and email according to mail standard (like "Henrik Gedenryd
> <h.gedenryd at open.ac.uk>")
> Maintainer: Name and email according to mail standard. Mandatory.
> Keywords: A bunch of keywords mostly for better searching
> ---
> 
> Question: Should this information be mandatory for all standalone
> modules? I would think so.
> 
> NOTE: This is the proposed MINIMAL info. Dependencies etc. are already
> covered in the module.
> Even though I would consider adding a few other relations between
> modules like for example
> "Conflicts with" and "Replaces" (inspired again by Debian). But that is
> again something for
> the module definition itself and not for this "module meta card".
> 
> * I left out categorization on purpose - it got complicated to
> coordinate a nice category tree.
> * I first thought of centrally registering licenses etc. (in fact I was
> thinking of stuffing them in a module!)
> but again - coordination problems made me instead opt for a simple url.
> 
> Let's bang this proposal around and if we can agree on it I could try to
> add support for it.
> 
> regards, Göran
> 
> PS. The next part is the hard part - how do we make all this
> metainformation available and up to date?
> I have some ideas and will post later. DS