Andres Mejia <mcita...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sunday 07 June 2009 01:47:04 Ben Finney wrote:
> > Thanks for raising this problem with the current draft. I agree that
> > it needs to be changed to allow spaces in the patterns.
[…]
> > I would prefer to have a specification that allows the above field
> > to be parsed as the patterns ‘foo’, ‘wibble wobble’, ‘bar’, and
> > ‘baz’. But that of course requires a more complex specification for
> > stripping leading and trailing space from each pattern, and allowing
> > leading and trailing space if those actually are *intended* as part
> > of the pattern, and so on.
> >
> > I'm not sure how to resolve this without making the specification
> > more hairy. Is there prior art we can refer to?
>
> You may refer to Debian Policy 7.1.
Policy §7.1 contains, in part:
Whitespace may appear at any point in the version specification
subject to the rules in Section 5.1, `Syntax of control files', and
must appear where it's necessary to disambiguate; it is not
otherwise significant.
That's contrary to what you're saying: we need a specification for file
names where whitespace *is* significant. How is Policy §7.1 helpful for
this purpose?
--
\ “Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual |
`\ profit without individual responsibility.” —Ambrose Bierce, |
_o__) _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
