On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:56:07 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:03:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:29:38 +0200, Denis Barbier
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>> > Anyway I fail to see which problems arise with this proposal,
Hi,
Ooops, forgot to CC the onjection to the bug report.
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:56:07 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:03:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:29:38 +0200, Denis Barbier
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:03:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:29:38 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> > Anyway I fail to see which problems arise with this proposal, could
> > someone enlighten me?
>
>
> This has been brought up before. The
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:55:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > This is a copout. If the field is not supposed to have non
> > ascii characters (since the tool chain can not yet handle them), then
> > policy should not be specifying the encoding of these illegal
> > characters.
>
> Wro
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:09:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> -
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:25:57 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:18:39PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:48:27AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> >> > > > Any
-
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:25:57 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:18:39PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:48:27AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
>> > > > Anyway I fail to see which problems arise with this proposal,
>> > > > could some
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:18:39PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:48:27AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > > Anyway I fail to see which problems arise with this proposal, could
> > > > someone enlighten me?
> > >
> > > It's too broad. Has anyone tested if the packaging sy
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:43:28PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > Your proposal says "the control fields". Description is just one, what
> > about all the others? (If it was your intent to only do this for
> > descriptions, why doesn't the proposal say so?)
>
> I think there should be one encodi
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:48:27AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > Anyway I fail to see which problems arise with this proposal, could
> > > someone enlighten me?
> >
> > It's too broad. Has anyone tested if the packaging system correctly
> > processes double-byte information everywhere?
>
> I
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:37:16PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > It will display incorrectly on the vast majority of workstations. Few
> > people are using UTF-8 terminals.
>
> I won't contradict you, but almost the same thing applies to
> debian/changelog (dpkg-parsechangelog), nevertheless i
[Resent, the news2mail gateway had swallowed the article]
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:59:43PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:35:36PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrot
Manoj Srivastava (2003-09-01 23:08:00 -0500) :
> You can't change policy in such a way that would make a
> significant number of packages instantly buggy.
Well, it would make a significant number of packages non-buggy, at
the same time. Or do you consider the bug is in the people's name,
and
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:29:38 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyway I fail to see which problems arise with this proposal, could
> someone enlighten me?
This has been brought up before. The control fields should not
contain charsets that can't yet be handled by the pac
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:42:38 +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Monday 01 September 2003 23:16, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> And that they are unwilling to conform, unlike everyone
>> else. Issues should be fixed (e.g. by patching the packaging system
>> and whatever else), not blithely ig
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > Right, it mostly means that their name contains non-ASCII letters.
> >
> > And that they are unwilling to conform, unlike everyone else. Issues should
> > be fixed (e.g. by patching the packaging system and whatever else), not
>
On Monday 01 September 2003 23:16, Josip Rodin wrote:
> And that they are unwilling to conform, unlike everyone else. Issues should
> be fixed (e.g. by patching the packaging system and whatever else), not
> blithely ignored by putting whatever the fuck one wants in the control
> file.
That's why
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:16:39PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:37:32PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > > > > Some control files contain non-ASCII characters, there is no reason
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > to mandate UTF-8 instead of random encodings.
> > > >
> > > > E
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:37:32PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > > > Some control files contain non-ASCII characters, there is no reason
> > > > > not
> > > > > to mandate UTF-8 instead of random encodings.
> > >
> > > Either you choose to mandate UTF-8, or you choose to forbid any encoding
>
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:28:57PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:15:02PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > Some control files contain non-ASCII characters, there is no reason not
> > > > to mandate UTF-8 instead of random encodings.
> >
> > Either you choose to mandate UTF
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:15:02PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > Some control files contain non-ASCII characters, there is no reason not
> > > to mandate UTF-8 instead of random encodings.
>
> Either you choose to mandate UTF-8, or you choose to forbid any encoding
> other than ASCII7.
The latt
On Monday 01 September 2003 17:56, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:59:43PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Some control files contain non-ASCII characters, there is no reason not
> > to mandate UTF-8 instead of random encodings.
>
> It will display incorrectly on the vast majori
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:59:43PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:35:36PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > This proposal aims to use UTF-8 encoding not only for debian/changelog,
> > > but also for debi
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030831 15:50]:
> Objection. Not until it is supported by the relevant tools. There are
> a number of bugs open on dpkg itself about this, without even
> considering the higher-level tools.
>
> A proposal requiring control files to be ASCII only might be more
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:35:36PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > This proposal aims to use UTF-8 encoding not only for debian/changelog,
> > but also for debian/control. Patch attached, as well as plain text for
> > better readin
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:35:36PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> This proposal aims to use UTF-8 encoding not only for debian/changelog,
> but also for debian/control. Patch attached, as well as plain text for
> better reading.
Objection. Not until it is supported by the relevant tools. There are
25 matches
Mail list logo
