Re: Declarative Diversions - GSoC Project Update 1
Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com> writes:
> ]] Raphael Hertzog
> | On Tue, 31 May 2011, sean finney wrote:
> | > Does this mean it will not be possible to divert a file when the source
> | > or destination has whitespace in it? If so I'd suggest you also have
> | > support for some backslash-type escaping.
> | Or to use two lines instead of one. And to support multiple entries make
> | the different entries separated by an empty line (so that it's possible to
> | add supplementary fields in the future shall that be required).
> I'd like us to go with the standard that's used in most other similar
> files: RFC2822 style, so something like:
> Divert-From: /usr/share/foo
> Divert-To: /usr/share/bar
> Divert-From: /usr/share/baz
> Divert-To: /usr/share/coo
> This makes it easier to figure out what the contents of the file means
> when you're tired or don't care to check the documentation.
Do we even need a "Divert-To"? In most cases the new name doesn't matter
or it is enough to know that the new name will be old name +.dpkg-divert
or +.<package> choosen automatically.
With RFC2822 style it would be possible to make the Divert-To optional
without being confusing to read or parse.