On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 12:11:04 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Another option could be to add a new modifier, like P(rivate) or
> > U(ser), to be used like XPBS-Field: which would preserve the X-. But
> > then you need a new enough dpkg-dev to be able t
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Another option could be to add a new modifier, like P(rivate) or
> U(ser), to be used like XPBS-Field: which would preserve the X-. But
> then you need a new enough dpkg-dev to be able to get that field.
I like that idea. It's not a big deal to have to u
Hi!
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 01:10:20 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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 d
Hi!
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 12:03:09 +0200, 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 pref
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
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30 2009, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> > 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 future, we suggest to use field names
>
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 future, we suggest to use field names starting with X- (so
> you need to put X[BCS]-X-foo into the control file
On Mon, Mar 30 2009, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
>
> Please add something along the following lines to the section 5.7
> "User defined fields" to the debian policy manual:
>
> Usually, unknown fields are iggnored by the debian packaging
> system. To avoid conflicts of user defined fields with field tha
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.0.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Please add something along the following lines to the section 5.7
> "User defined fields" to the debian policy manual:
>
> Usually, unknown fields are iggnored by the debian packaging
Nils Rennebarth wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: wishlist
Please add something along the following lines to the section 5.7
"User defined fields" to the debian policy manual:
Usually, unknown fields are iggnored by the debian packaging system. To
avoid conflicts of user
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: wishlist
Please add something along the following lines to the section 5.7
"User defined fields" to the debian policy manual:
Usually, unknown fields are iggnored by the debian packaging system. To
avoid conflicts of user defined fields with field
19 matches
Mail list logo
