Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 11:32:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> reassign 142164 general
>> thanks
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just because a topic has been discussed on the policy
>> discussion list is not reason enough to assign the bug to
>> policy.
>
> Note that bug has been reassigned to the policy in 2003. Spam
> closed it, and it was just reopened.
>
>> This has nothing to do with creating a package, and certainly
>> not the place of policy to lead out by mandating stuff. Again, this
>> problem needs to be worked out abd put into effect by the bits that
>> put the Package ile together, and once we have a working solution, we
>> can start examing the bits of policy that may need to be changed for
>> the solution.
>
> I agree that the policy shouldn't mandate that the Packages
> file should be encoded in UTF-8. But I think it should say
> the the control and changelog files are, and I believe that is in
> the scope of the policy. This would of course have as side
> effect that the Packages file ends up as UTF-8 too.
>
> Note it says that is is "recommended" to encode the changelog in
> UTF-8 (C.2.2), it does not say any such thing about the control
> file. I think we should say that both should be encoded in
> UTF-8, or maybe a must. But we can change that to a must at a
> later date.
>
>
> Kurt
I think all six, dsc, changes, changelog, control, Packages and
Sources files, must be UTF-8 for three simple reasons:
- They all interconnect through tools that preserve / ignore the
encoding.
- They can't have different encodings since guessing the right
conversions would be hell.
- UTF-8 is the only practical format covering all cases.
If policy has something to say about one of them then it has to say
something about all of them.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
