Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:01:31PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: Why can't we just use UTF-8? There is even (my) pending policy proposal for this #99933, and consensus was that it should be accepted, there are just few (pseudo)issues holding it back. I've read #99933 and #143941, and I see very little that's relevant. I had only the charset in mind, of course. What are these (pseudo)issues? Citing Manoj Srivastava: Hmm. Seems like we want to support utf-8 for the future, though perhaps that can wait until we get tool support for that. dpkg-query should start supporting it soon. I guess we should shelve this until we have better support from the tool chain. (we do not have consensus, in any case) well, the sentence about dpkg-query was misinformed, since it handles utf-8 fine, Manoj was confused by dpkg-query's author promising to add character conversion. Otherwise, all dpkg related tools I can think of were working with utf-8 well, now the appearance of new perl messed up things a bit and there are bugs to be hunted. Nothing catastrophic in any case, and once my new e-mail is sorted out, I am going to start using diacritics in my name for Maintainer: field. In UTF-8, of course. Now that RedHat drastically switched itself into UTF-8, we may expect much better upstream support for UTF-8 from different tools. It is sad to be just following RH's way instead of leading it ourselves, but well, that's the life :-) -- --- | Radovan Garabík http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk | --- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:24:30AM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 06:32:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 05:33:10PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: True. It could get away with tossing everything outside angulars or inside brackets, though. The address can be mandated to stay 7bit for now. At any rate, people shouldn't be putting raw Latin1 in these fields. Amen. Use UTF-8. Amen. 7-bit ASCII only. I have not been following the debate due to time constraints, so excuse me for stepping in like this, but I have to tell it... Given that the control file is 7-bit pseudo-822, and has the same issues as mail headers (i.e. presented before any C-T header) is there any reason not to follow RFC2047 for the representation of non US-ASCII maintiner names? My God. You really want to put this cr*p into debian/control? Why can't we just use UTF-8? There is even (my) pending policy proposal for this #99933, and consensus was that it should be accepted, there are just few (pseudo)issues holding it back. Remember it is just pseudo-822, not real 822, so we need not keep compatibility (which is not even there) with 822 at any price. -- --- | Radovan Garabík http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk | --- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
Why can't we just use UTF-8? There is even (my) pending policy proposal for this #99933, and consensus was that it should be accepted, there are just few (pseudo)issues holding it back. I've read #99933 and #143941, and I see very little that's relevant. What are these (pseudo)issues?
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 06:32:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 05:33:10PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: True. It could get away with tossing everything outside angulars or inside brackets, though. The address can be mandated to stay 7bit for now. At any rate, people shouldn't be putting raw Latin1 in these fields. Amen. 7-bit ASCII only. Given that the control file is 7-bit pseudo-822, and has the same issues as mail headers (i.e. presented before any C-T header) is there any reason not to follow RFC2047 for the representation of non US-ASCII maintiner names? The alternative convention of a or a for ä is only really workable for ISO latin. --bod
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
[Branden removed from the Cc after much deliberation] Given that the control file is 7-bit pseudo-822, and has the same issues as mail headers (i.e. presented before any C-T header) is there any reason not to follow RFC2047 for the representation of non US-ASCII maintiner names? I think the objections on this front are that it's not directly human-readable. Of course, neither is Felix Kr�ger, Dagfinn Ilmari Manns�ker, or R�mi Perrot, since I'm using UTF-8. The alternative convention of a or a for ä is only really workable for ISO latin. It's ugly too.
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 05:33:10PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: True. It could get away with tossing everything outside angulars or inside brackets, though. The address can be mandated to stay 7bit for now. At any rate, people shouldn't be putting raw Latin1 in these fields. Amen. 7-bit ASCII only. -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. pgp5xzuORE2nt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Preserving would be useful if there were a lot of users or programs taking the content of the maintainer field and stuffing it into a To header.[...] One program that does that is jennifer (of katie fame). True. It could get away with tossing everything outside angulars or inside brackets, though. The address can be mandated to stay 7bit for now. -- Robbe
Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
True. It could get away with tossing everything outside angulars or inside brackets, though. The address can be mandated to stay 7bit for now. At any rate, people shouldn't be putting raw Latin1 in these fields.
Re: Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field
What you want seems to be something that the Policy needs to regulate, I don't want to make Lintian require all that =?iso_8859-2? stuff and thus encourage people to use that. It's moot and the Policy doesn't explicitely mandate the format of the name. I still think it already does, in D.2.4.
