Charles Plessy writes:
> From: Charles Plessy
> 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
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> - Distinguishes
Le Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:42:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > The reason why I tried to fit the folded and multiline fields under the
> > same definition of a logical line is that otherwise there was no
> > definition of how to construct a multiline field. How ab
Charles Plessy 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 mode][1], a logical
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 spac
Charles Plessy 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 lines; in this
Le Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:46:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> How about this:
>
>
> There are three types of fields:
>
> simple
> folded
> multiline
I think that it is a good idea. I took your wording, but moved what was common
between folded and
Charles Plessy 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 not.
> In the
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
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog 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
Raphael Hertzog 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, and
>> parers
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
Charles Plessy 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 specifies that they
Le Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 01:34:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy 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 significant.
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 04:17 -0700, PJ Weisberg wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Charles Plessy 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
> >>>
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy 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 significant. Any amount of
Charles Plessy 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 wher
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery 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
* Russ Allbery [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 generate and libe
Charles Plessy 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; they're only allowed
Charles Plessy 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 data is allowed and whitespace is not significant in a field
> body. Whitespace must
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
> > e
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
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
--
23 matches
Mail list logo
