Le Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer a écrit : > On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 07:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > In the candidate version of the DEP, it is not recommended anymore to add > > an X- > > prefix to extra fields. > btw: Why was this removed? Adding the X- is not only conventional style > in email headers and many other RFCs but also (in a similar form) by the > Debian Policy with respect to control files.
Here is an URL to the latest discussion: http://lists.debian.org/20101114023744.ga4...@merveille.plessy.net An immediate advantage is that if a field is becoming popular and incorporated in a revision of the DEP, tools will not have to be modified to deal with it. The X[SBC]- prefixes in debian/control are different in nature. They indicate to dpkg in which derived file the extra fields have to be propagated: the source (S), changes (C) or binary (B) file. In these files, the X[SBC]- is stripped. For instance, when the Homepage field was introduced, it was XS-Homepage in debian/control, but Homepage in the source control (.dsc) file. And it is in this file and its derivatives that parsers, from the very befinning of the introduction, look for a Homepage field, with no prefix. Given that there are only 9 different fields in the current DEP-5 syntax, I think that parsers can simply incorporate the full list of them rather than rely on a X- prefix to determine if a field is in the specification or not. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110116124855.ge28...@merveille.plessy.net
