Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If you're going to standardize a prefix that's purely for private,
>> internal use and will never, ever be standardized in any fashion, could I
>> convince you (and Nils) to use a prefix other than X-? E-mail has
>> poisoned the
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you're going to standardize a prefix that's purely for private,
> internal use and will never, ever be standardized in any fashion, could I
> convince you (and Nils) to use a prefix other than X-? E-mail has
> poisoned the well on X-, and now people re
Don Armstrong wrote:
Is there any reason why we can't transition official X-* headers to
real * headers as they become widely used (and when they're inshrined
in policy)?
Some transition period would be necessary, and dpkg-gencontrol could
be patched to automatically rename the X-* headers to *
Don Armstrong writes:
> Is there any reason why we can't transition official X-* headers to
> real * headers as they become widely used (and when they're inshrined
> in policy)?
>
> Some transition period would be necessary, and dpkg-gencontrol could
> be patched to automatically rename the X-* h
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Nils Rennebarth writes:
> >
> > > Usually, unknown fields are iggnored by the debian packaging system. To
> > > avoid conflicts of user defined fields with field that may be used by
> > > debian in the futu
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> In this case, Nils came to us because they add an "X-Buildinfo" field
> containing some private VCS information and they didn't want to have the
> warning generated by dpkg-deb (in order to not miss some other important
> warnings). His request made sense.
>
> After havi
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
After having accepted the patch, I wondered where it should be documented
and Nils pointed me to the policy section. So I asked him to submit a bug
here.
I fail to see any problem with telling people outside of Debian that they
can freely use "X-" fields for their private
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Keeping the X- prefix when copying fields would mean we could never
> > invent new fields without forcing a mass rename of fields once they are
> > official. Or we could not add official fields if we use an old dpkg-dev.
>
> Indeed, that's a serious pro
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> If so, that seems like a bad design; I wonder if we can just fix that
>> instead.
Sorry, I withdraw this completely -- I didn't think it through. This
creates the same problem in a different way.
> Unknown fields are ign
9 matches
Mail list logo
