Charles Plessy writes:
> Here is an updated patch, that contains the following:
> Each paragraph consists of a series of data fields; each
> field consists of the field name, followed by a colon and
> - then the data/value associated with that field. It ends at
> -
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 00:18:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> From: Charles Plessy
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:14:42 +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-Transf
Charles Plessy writes:
> Here is an updated patch, that contains the following:
> Each paragraph consists of a series of data fields; each
> field consists of the field name, followed by a colon and
> - then the data/value associated with that field. It ends at
> -
Le Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 03:13:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > how about simply paraphrasing the RFC 822/5832, which our the source of
> > inspiration ? In that case, the requirement for field names will be to
> > be printable ASCII characters, except colons.
>
>
Charles Plessy writes:
> how about simply paraphrasing the RFC 822/5832, which our the source of
> inspiration ? In that case, the requirement for field names will be to
> be printable ASCII characters, except colons.
> I propose the following change in the context the patch that I am
> preparin
Charles Plessy writes:
> how about simply paraphrasing the RFC 822/5832, which our the source of
> inspiration ? In that case, the requirement for field names will be to
> be printable ASCII characters, except colons.
> I propose the following change in the context the patch that I am
> preparin
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 01:35:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
> > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>
> >> 22:02:40 < rra> jawnsy: I don't think we say that explicitly, but RFC
> >> 5322 requires it and I can't imagine ever not enforcing that.
> >> Although you sho
Le Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 01:35:00AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>
> > I'm certainly OK with policy requiring field names to be ASCII.
>
> I think that's probably the right thing to do.
Dear all,
how about simply paraphrasing the RFC 822/5832, which our the source of
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>> 22:02:40 < rra> jawnsy: I don't think we say that explicitly, but RFC
>> 5322 requires it and I can't imagine ever not enforcing that.
>> Although you should check with the dpkg maintainers to be sure.
>>
>> Could we/should we
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> 22:02:40 < rra> jawnsy: I don't think we say that explicitly, but RFC
> 5322 requires it and I can't imagine ever not enforcing that.
> Although you should check with the dpkg maintainers to be sure.
>
> Could we/should we make the Debian Policy more restr
Dear Debian dpkg Maintainers:
I believe that all control field names currently in use are restricted
to the ASCII character set.
Debian Policy currently specifies that the files are to be UTF-8
encoded, but does not mention whether any control field names could
be, in the future, encoded in anyth
11 matches
Mail list logo
