Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
From: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:15:05 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Clarification of the format of control files, Closes:
#501930, #593909.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Le Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:47:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
That looks mostly right except I think you moved a bit too much.
- Many fields' values may span several lines; in this case
- each continuation line must start with a space or a tab.
- Any trailing spaces or
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I was a bit afraid of receiving this answer. Actually, I made some
research before proposing this wording, to better figure out what a
“logical line” is. Unfortunately, there is not one single defintion. In
some cases like the emacs [Visual Line
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I think that it is a good idea. I took your wording, but moved what was
common between folded and multiline fields to the previous paragraph.
That looks mostly right except I think you moved a bit too much.
- Many fields' values may span several
Le Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:46:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
How about this:
p
There are three types of fields:
taglist
tagsimple/tag
tagfolded/tag
tagmultiline/tag
I think that it is a good idea. I took your wording, but moved what was
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I think that it is an excellent idea to use the vocabulary of the
RFC. It has been written many times that the control files follow the
syntax of the RFC 822 and its successors, and I think that it would help
to show where this is true and where it is
Le Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 06:52:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
The distinction really is that some fields can be folded (Build-*, for
example) and some fields are multi-line (Description, Files). The
multi-line fields are not folded in the RFC 5322 sense, since you cannot
just remove the
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believe this is true of all binary relationship fields and all build
relationship fields as well. The dpkg-dev tools unfold all of those
fields when generating *.dsc, *.changes, and DEBIAN/control files, and
parers of those generated files do not
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believe this is true of all binary relationship fields and all build
relationship fields as well. The dpkg-dev tools unfold all of those
fields when generating *.dsc, *.changes, and DEBIAN/control files,
Le Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 01:34:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
In fields where the value may not span multiple lines, the amount
of whitespace in the field body is not
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
First, as a sidenote, no field specifies that it may not span multiple
lines. I therefore agree with you that it is an implicit default case,
and propose to make it explicit in § 5.1 (see below).
Agreed.
I then looked at which field description
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
In fields where the value may not span multiple lines, the amount
of whitespace in the field body is not
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 04:17 -0700, PJ Weisberg wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
In fields where the value may not span multiple lines,
Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Non-wrappable field values
--
§5.1 contains the following paragraph:
In fields where it is specified that lines may not wrap, only a single
line of
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
What this paragraph means by wrap is may span multiple lines, and
it's also really not correct about whitespace. I think what this
paragraph should say is something like:
In fields
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
to this list I would like to add comment lines. Currently they are
described in §5.2 (5.2 Source package control files -- debian/control),
as an additional syntax, which strongly suggests that they are allowed
in this file only.
That's correct;
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [100827 19:27]:
I'm torn on that bug. The ideal thing to do there, I think, is to say
that lines consisting solely of spaces and tabs are a syntax error and are
not allowed, but parsers may accept them as paragraph separators. (Be
conservative in what you
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
In that case, yes, we should say that the order of paragraphs is
significant, since indeed it always has been. Probably just by adding
the sentence The order of paragraphs in the control file is
significant to the end of the first paragraph.
The source
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
In that case, yes, we should say that the order of paragraphs is
significant, since indeed it always has been. Probably just by adding
the sentence The order of paragraphs in the control file is
significant to
Le Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 03:23:26PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
I have been reading §5.1 (Syntax of control files) many times recently, and
would like propose clarifications about a couple of points. If consensus
emerges,
I will write a patch.
Non-wrappable field values
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 10:05 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 03:23:26PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
I have been reading §5.1 (Syntax of control files) many times recently, and
would like propose clarifications about a couple of points. If consensus
emerges,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Dear all,
I have been reading §5.1 (Syntax of control files) many times recently, and
would like propose clarifications about a couple of points. If consensus
emerges,
I will write a patch.
Non-wrappable field values
22 matches
Mail list logo
