On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 04:29, Denis Barbier wrote:
>
> Uploading packages with UTF-8 control fields is not ok. It will simply
> put, not work for anyone who's not using a UTF-8 terminal, which is
> unfortunately probably most of our
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 11:58, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> [...]
> > It looks to me like at this point almost everyone agrees with the
> > content of my proposal in #99933, and we are discussing implementation
> > details. Agreed?
>
> No.
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 14:22, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > It looks to me like at this point almost everyone agrees with the
> > content of my proposal in #99933, and we are discussing implementation
> > details. Agreed?
>
> I
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> It looks to me like at this point almost everyone agrees with the
> content of my proposal in #99933, and we are discussing implementation
> details. Agreed?
I do STRONGLY DISAGREE with
... Programs included in Debian
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 05:58:31PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> I was unclear, and only speaking about files shipped by Debian packages
> which contain non-ASCII characters without specifying their encoding.
> Users can do whatever they want with their data.
> I have almost txt, man and info pages
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
[...]
> It looks to me like at this point almost everyone agrees with the
> content of my proposal in #99933, and we are discussing implementation
> details. Agreed?
No. We agree that UTF-8 support must be dramatically improved, but
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 04:29, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > but unless someone starts actually _using_ UTF-8, we would never know
> > which tools are broken and which are not (I already found one bug
> > in handling of UTF-8 GPG alias - I'll file the bugreport after some more
> > testing).
Testing our
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:29:33AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
[...]
> A similar approach could be considered for deb control files, a new
> mandatory Encoding field must be added to debian/control (and automatically
> put in other files when needed), which tells encoding used by all control
> file
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:29:44AM +0100, Radovan Garabik 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 anyth
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:24:26PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 11:45, Radovan Garabik 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. Rig
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:41:47PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 11:07, Michael Bramer wrote:
>
> > The DDTP has no problmes with UTF-8 in control fields. Some maintainer
> > use UTF-8 or something else with 'some translations' in the descriptions.
> >
> > This is not nice.
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 11:07, Michael Bramer wrote:
> The DDTP has no problmes with UTF-8 in control fields. Some maintainer
> use UTF-8 or something else with 'some translations' in the descriptions.
>
> This is not nice.
>
> The policy should be: use normal ACSII and UTF-8 encoding if you use
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 02:36:16AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> [ CC'd to the Debian Description Translation Project maintainer, as he
> may be interested ]
thanks
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 13:24, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 11:45, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> >
> > > > #99933 goes
[ CC'd to the Debian Description Translation Project maintainer, as he
may be interested ]
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 13:24, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 11:45, Radovan Garabik wrote:
>
> > > #99933 goes a lot farther than #174982. First of all, we can't even
> > > suggest that people
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 Fri, 2003-01-03 at 11:45, Radovan Garabik 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.
>
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:57:35PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 13:12, Radovan Garabik wrote:
>
> > see #99933. It has been seconded and generally accepted at the time,
> > but policy freeze caused it did not get into policy then.
>
> Hmm, I searched the policy bug list, I
Hi Roland!
You wrote:
> >> Policy applies to all packages, whether they state that they comply
> >> with it yet or not. I'd also go with "should" in the meantime until
> >> a survey is done and we know how many changelogs need to be fixed,
> >> but I think in the long run it ought to be mandatory
Colin Walters (2003-01-02 11:54:08 -0500) :
> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:12, Colin Watson wrote:
>
>> Policy applies to all packages, whether they state that they comply
>> with it yet or not. I'd also go with "should" in the meantime until
>> a survey is done and we know how many changelogs need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Colin Walters
| Any seconds?
seconded.
| --- policy.sgml~ 2002-11-15 01:49:40.0 -0500
| +++ policy.sgml 2003-01-01 21:59:26.0 -0500
| @@ -2257,6 +2257,13 @@
| separated by exactly two spaces.
|
|
| +
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:07:08PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> --- policy.sgml~ 2002-11-15 01:49:40.0 -0500
> +++ policy.sgml 2003-01-01 21:59:26.0 -0500
> @@ -2257,6 +2257,13 @@
> separated by exactly two spaces.
>
>
> +
> + The entire chan
> install:
> .
> .
> iconv -f iso-8859-15 -t utf-8 < debian/changelog >
> debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(PACKAGE)/changelog.Debian
> gzip -9 debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(PACKAGE)/changelog.Debian
Would it not make more sense to do the conversion once, in
debian/changelog, rather
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 12:37, James Troup wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > + http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2279.html";
> > name="UTF-8">
>
> Could we please have a more, err, generic URL for the RFC?
The Ohio State CIS department has long been one of th
On 02 Jan 2003 17:37:13 +
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > + > id="http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2279.html";
> > name="UTF-8">
>
> Could we please have a more, err, generic URL for the RFC?
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/rf
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 13:12, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> see #99933. It has been seconded and generally accepted at the time,
> but policy freeze caused it did not get into policy then.
Hmm, I searched the policy bug list, I don't know how I missed those.
Probably my fault for using galeon-snapshot
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:07:08PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
...
>
> Attached is a patch against the latest version of policy.
see #99933. It has been seconded and generally accepted at the time,
but policy freeze caused it did not get into policy then.
Perhaps it
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2279.html";
> name="UTF-8">
Could we please have a more, err, generic URL for the RFC?
--
James
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 11:54:08AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. Here's a patch which makes it a "should". Given my
> sample with lintian though, I don't think we'll have too many packages
> to fix.
>
> Any seconds?
> --- policy.sgml~ 2002-11-15 01:49:40.0 -0500
>
> This proposal is a fairly important yet easy to take first step along
> the way of transitioning all of Debian to UTF-8.
>
> Attached is a patch against the latest version of policy.
Seconded. The policy documents should probably be converted to UTF-8
too.
pgp1u8pDVFCTE.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:12, Colin Watson wrote:
> Policy applies to all packages, whether they state that they comply with
> it yet or not. I'd also go with "should" in the meantime until a survey
> is done and we know how many changelogs need to be fixed, but I think in
> the long run it ought t
> > > | Right now, people are putting whatever random characters they feel like
> > > | in Debian changelogs;
> > >
> > > I think we shouldn't use must just yet, since this will cause a lot of
> > > packages (you know how many?) to be instantly buggy. If you change
> > > the ?must? to ?should?, I
>>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think we shouldn't use must just yet, since this will cause a lot of
>> packages (you know how many?) to be instantly buggy. If you change
>> the «must» to «should», I'll second the proposal.
Junichi> Erm.. no, only those package
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 06:09:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > | Right now, people are putting whatever random characters they feel like
> > | in Debian changelogs; they might be encoded in ISO-8859-1, BIG5,
> > | ISO-8859-2, ISO-2022-JP, or who knows what. This does come up in the
> > | rea
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 06:09:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > | Right now, people are putting whatever random characters they feel like
> > | in Debian changelogs;
> >
> > I think we shouldn't use must just yet, since this will cause a lot of
> > packages (you know how many?) to be instantly
> | Right now, people are putting whatever random characters they feel like
> | in Debian changelogs; they might be encoded in ISO-8859-1, BIG5,
> | ISO-8859-2, ISO-2022-JP, or who knows what. This does come up in the
> | real world; I use apt-listchanges, and I fairly often see broken
> | charact
[ No need to CC me; I am subscribed to -policy ]
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 00:23, David B Harris wrote:
> Could you provide a quick background about what Unicode is
Sure. Essentially Unicode is a universal character set, used to encode
all the world's languages, plus other symbols from mathematics
* Colin Walters
| Support for Unicode, and specifically UTF-8, is steadily increasing
| among popular applications in Debian. For example, in unstable, GNOME 2
| has excellent support (almost level 2) in almost all its applications;
| the big remaining one is gnome-terminal, of which one require
On 01 Jan 2003 22:07:08 -0500
> I think it is fairly obvious that we need to eventually transition to
> UTF-8 for our package infrastructure; it is really the only sane
> charset in an international environment. Now, we can't switch to
> using UTF-8 for package control fields and the like until dp
Package: debian-policy
Support for Unicode, and specifically UTF-8, is steadily increasing
among popular applications in Debian. For example, in unstable, GNOME 2
has excellent support (almost level 2) in almost all its applications;
the big remaining one is gnome-terminal, of which one requires
39 matches
Mail list logo
