For the record: > Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is > unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate > message then please contact the developer, by replying to this email. > >... > > Good thing it isn't ment to be RFC822 conforming..
This is not an acceptable answer. Debian "control" files are RFC822 conforming. Debian dpkg "status" files are RFC822 conforming. Debian dpkg "available" files are RFC822 conforming. Debian apt "Packages" files are RFC822 conforming. Debian apt "Source" files are RFC822 conforming. Debian apt "Release" files are RFC822 conforming. AFAIK, all output from "dpkg" which provides package information, e.g., "dpkg -s", is RFC822 conforming. AFAIK, almost all output from "apt-cache" which provides package information is RFC822 comforming. The exception I have identified is non-conforming by a SINGLE MISSING SPACE - we are not talking about a radically different format due to unusual requirements. Finally, I am sure that I have seen statements somewhere in the Debian developer's guide that ALL package information should be in this format to facilitate the use of standarized code. So, in light of this, why should I assume that the official policy of the Debian APT group has apparently become that inconsistent behavior and arbitary violation of your own standards is the norm? -- Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
