On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 21:17, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 04, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> We may want a BOM, at the start, though.
> >
> >We don't need one for UTF-8. That's another one of the great things
> >about it.
> What do you know about international environments? M
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 20:01, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> The same applies to bash. There has been patch in the BTS for a very
> long time but it has never been applied.
Hm, the latest bash appears to work for me at least. I've been using it
when I want to do UTF-8 file manipulation until zsh is fixed.
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 19:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Actually, the file names are in UTF8 already. :)
Well, hey, so they are. Don't know why it didn't look like it before...
> And any hard coded scripts using -d norsk (or -d bokmal) for getting
> Norwegian ispell output.
Hm, but if the filena
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 03:17:17AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I propose a new policy amendment: developers whose native language is
> english should not discuss i18n-related policy matters.
That would make sure that i18n is always an afterthought. You need
to work *with* developers, not *agains
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 04:30:48AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is outside FHS-domain.
I'm confused by this. How, is a file system policy outside the FHS?
> But I think that a so big change from standard UNIX practice would be
> so stupid that if accepted I would probably leave debian.
A
On Jan 05, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe ask on the FHS list for comments, too?
This is outside FHS-domain. But I think that a so big change from
standard UNIX practice would be so stupid that if accepted I would
probably leave debian.
Recent programs do not have user-editable c
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 07:21:11PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> A while back, on one of my other lists, there was a discussion about
> user configuration files for the program and where to put them. That
> led to how frustrated many users were with the dot files just littering
> their home dir
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 02:37:07AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I like the idea. I vote for ~/etc, though, not ~/.etc; there's little
> point hiding this one directory name if it is going to contain all of
> the configuration data. Of course there is a lot of software out
> there which doesn't
On Jan 04, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We may want a BOM, at the start, though.
>
>We don't need one for UTF-8. That's another one of the great things
>about it.
What do you know about international environments? Maybe you do not need
a BOM because your native language needs j
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 07:21:11PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> A while back, on one of my other lists, there was a discussion about
> user configuration files for the program and where to put them. That
> led to how frustrated many users were with the dot files just littering
> their home dir
On Jan 04, Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Considering old standards broken because a newer one exists is just
>ridiculous.
Agreed.
>> I've noticed that UTF-8 sometimes makes zsh unhappy, [...]
>
>That's quite an understatement. The commandline editor can't deal with
>multibyte
A while back, on one of my other lists, there was a discussion about
user configuration files for the program and where to put them. That
led to how frustrated many users were with the dot files just littering
their home directory. One suggestion that came out of it that I liked
was to put all th
* Colin Walters
| On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 13:15, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > * Colin Walters
| >
| > | Note that in my proposal UTF-8 filenames are only mandatory (a "must")
| > | for files *included directly* in Debian packages or created by
| > | maintainer scripts. Since I don't think we have
* Bill Wohler
| > The proposal states, in part, that /usr/share/images/
| > and can be referred to as http://localhost/images//
|
| By strict reading of this example, it would seem that these images
| would only be available to localhost. This is not the case. It's
| important that th
> > and then deleting it gets you in trouble, because zsh does not handle
> > the two byte sequence as one character.
>
> Ok. Well, this should not be impossible to fix, I hope.
No, just difficult to fix without a nasty kludge.
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 16:33, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Don't you think this is a common case? I'd even say more common than
> your scenarios. At least common enough that it should be acknowledged.
I agree, it is common enough. But previously people had no choice but
to use a broken hack; now we
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so. I have put forth many real-world scenarios in which
> using national charsets for filenames simply breaks, in ways that are
> basically impossible to fix. You may be able to get away with using a
> national charset on a machine where
Previously Colin Walters wrote:
> Opinions?
I second this proposal.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wiggy.net/
A random hacker
Previously Colin Walters wrote:
> #99933 goes a lot farther than #174982. First of all, we can't even
> suggest that people use UTF-8 in package control fields until all our
> tools support it. Right now it is just plain broken to put anything but
> ASCII in them.
Right. I'm tempted to make the
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 13:15, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Colin Walters
>
> | Note that in my proposal UTF-8 filenames are only mandatory (a "must")
> | for files *included directly* in Debian packages or created by
> | maintainer scripts. Since I don't think we have any packages including
> | any
* Colin Walters
| Note that in my proposal UTF-8 filenames are only mandatory (a "must")
| for files *included directly* in Debian packages or created by
| maintainer scripts. Since I don't think we have any packages including
| anything but ASCII filenames, this will not change a thing.
You ar
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 10:55, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > As I see it, the current (broken ?) behaviour is, to use the user's
> > > locale setting (LC_CTYPE) to encode file names.
> >
> > It appears so, and yes, this behavior is completely and fund
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 174982 [ACCEPTED]: Debian changelogs should be UTF-8 encoded
Bug#174982: [PROPOSAL]: Debian changelogs should be UTF-8 encoded
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 06:10, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 04, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In summary, UTF-8 is the *only* sane character set to use for
> >filenames.
> True, but does not work in reality for too many people, so this cannot
> be made mandatory.
Note that in my p
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As I see it, the current (broken ?) behaviour is, to use the user's
> > locale setting (LC_CTYPE) to encode file names.
>
> It appears so, and yes, this behavior is completely and fundamentally
> broken.
Whether or not this is broken is debatable.
Joey Hess writes ("Bug#172436: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] web browser url
viewing"):
...
> The value of BROWSER may consist of a colon-separated series of
> browser command parts. These should be tried in order until one
> succeeds.
This is a bad idea because it will be very annoying if the
On Jan 04, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In summary, UTF-8 is the *only* sane character set to use for
>filenames.
True, but does not work in reality for too many people, so this cannot
be made mandatory.
> Major upstream software for Debian like GNOME is moving
>towards requiring
27 matches
Mail list logo
