[Fedora-packaging] Drafts for next Tuesday
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Mar 20 09:10:21 UTC 2008
Le Jeu 20 mars 2008 09:20, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:31 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>> > 2. I do not agree to the "When Upstream Naming is outside ..."
>> > This section is unnecessarily/avoidable adding confusion for
>> > maintainers. Non-ASCII names have always been banned rsp.
>> > impossible ever since Linux exists => this is a non-issue.
>> That's blatantly false.
> I guess I don't have to mention that I whole heartily disagree.
You can disagree all you want that's a plain fact hard. I did the
tests and you didn't. In fact they show a the breakage when it happens
is in the upper layers bolted over rpm in the recent years, and I
doubt this was a conscious design decision of the people who wrote
You could probably shove an 8-bit iso-8859-1 name (which is not the
same thing as 7-bit ASCII) through the whole infrastructure today and
it wouldn't blink.
>> They've not been "banned", otherwise the
>> document would not be written today,
> This document has been written, because you and your écollier-fonts
> package submissing are challenging what had been "common sense" to
> experienced users, so far.
>> and they've not been "impossible".
> You still seem to refuse to understand the issue.
> Installing your package is technically close to impossible to many
> users, because they are not able to type/read/display its name
Nevertheless the plain fact is that they've not been impossible and
they've not been banned before.
> May-be you don't see this problem, because "é" is common in your
> culture - To others, it's unreadable, undisplayable "fly dirt" (German
> hacker slang for unreadable, undisplayable characters), "Greek" as
> Englishmen might be calling it.
I perfectly understand the problem, which is why I object to you
pretending it's something else to shore up your arguments.
>> What changed is that the 8-bits encoding that passed through before
>> being replaced by an encoding that lifts all the
>> incompatibility problems and adds some technical requirements that
>> be taken care of.
> I disagree. SuSE and Debian have it right.
Which again are soft policies, not the impossibility you pretend in
More information about the Fedora-packaging