On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Stuart Prescott wrote: > > but if deb822 is not derived from rfc822, I guess my report was a moot ;)
> I can see where you're coming from here. Our definition of the format is > Policy > ยง5.1, which doesn't actually mention RFC822, defines some things that are not > in that RFC and doesn't include other things that are. I suspect that our > common description of this format as being "pseudo-rfc822" is a (clumsy) > shorthand that at times leads us astray. > So, I think your bug report exposed some useful inconsistencies in deb822's > handling of filehandles vs other generators and I think we're getting close > to > solving them. Adding handling to the parser for ";"-comments, however, I > think > we should skip. thank you for the analysis -- and I am glad to be that useful ;) Do as you deemed necessary. Cheers! > (thanks to juliank and others in #d-devel for confirming my suspicions) +1 -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Research Scientist, Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
