On Jul 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Paweł A. Gajda wrote:
On 7/14/07, Jeff Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 14, 2007, at 3:37 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> For RPM itself it could make sense to ship with either "#%
_extra_tags
> *" (backward compatibility mode), "%_extra_tags X-*" (escaping
mode)
> or "%_extra_tags *" (convenience mode) in "macros". I personally
would
> vote for the "escaping mode" as it out-of-the-box does allow .spec
> builders to use arbitrary "X-..." tags, but they are still clearly
> distinguishable as arbitrary custom tags and the messing happens
> under a fixed namespace.
Establishing conventions for arbitrary tag naming assumes that there
is mechanism to detect and/or enforce conventions, and does not
fit with the
definition of "arbitrary".
But if "Reqiures: foo" (notice swapped i with u) becomes an arbitrary
tag without
any warning, it does not fit with the definition of "good" IMHO.
And "Reqiures" does not conform to the definition of "arbitrary".
Tough.
Why not enforce custom tag names to X-* convention like HTTP does?
Simple, distinguishable at the first look and guarantees will not
conflict with rpm tags
in the future.
Because certain rpm developers and the Script Kiddie himself thought
that the
ability to add "arbitrary" tags (and sections, that patch is pending)
to spec files
was A Very Good Idea.
I don't agree, but I do not wish to discuss further. The cost of the
discussion is already
higher than the cost of the preemptive implementation.
Lusers asked for the implementation, now deal with the consequences of
what was requested. "Arbitrary" means exactly that, unspecified and
unknown,
typo's are not an rpm problem, nor will naming conventions solve the
typo problem,
consider
X-Reqiures: foo
Note swapped 'i' and 'u'.
73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
