Le dimanche 23 janvier 2011 15:26:46, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >For instance, this DEP-5 file is valid, since Maintainer field is
> >accepted as an unknown parameter and Upstream-Contact is optional:
> >
> >Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
> >Maintainer: foo@bar
> >
> >Files: *
> >Copy
On su, 2011-01-23 at 12:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have always been lukewarm on the idea of specifying within the DEP itself
> that "extra fields can be added" without standards-compliance implications.
> I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first
> *defining* t
Le Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont a écrit :
>
> Config::Model was designed to handle configuration files where the concept of
> unknown parameter does not apply.
Dear Dominique,
I think that it is completely fine. There is no guarantee that an extra field
is used consis
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:29:03PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first
*defining* those fields; and with DEP5, defining them is as
straightforward as taking a copy of the DEP, adding your field
definitions to it, posting that modif
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > Not having looked at the code, I'm wondering: do you apply these
> > translations to all files regardless of the Format/Format-Specification
> > field's value, or a
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :
I don't think, for instance, that a file that has a declaration of
Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [1] should have 'Maintainer'
fields auto-upgraded to 'Upst
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Not having looked at the code, I'm wondering: do you apply these
> translations to all files regardless of the Format/Format-Specification
> field's value, or are you selective about only applying these upgrades to
> fields that were
Hi Dominique,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:16:59PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> I've fixed upstream [1] most (hopefully all) the issues
> regarding the DEP5 parser based on Config::Model that
> were mentioned on these lists or in the BTS.
> The new version is already (thanks gregoa) available
Hello
I've fixed upstream [1] most (hopefully all) the issues
regarding the DEP5 parser based on Config::Model that
were mentioned on these lists or in the BTS.
The new version is already (thanks gregoa) available
on Debian/Sid in libconfig-model-perl 1.230
I've updated the parser so as to u
9 matches
Mail list logo
