* Andrew Shugg <andrew@neep.com.au> [2003-04-18 02:10]:
> Josip Rodin said:
>> You've clearly outvoted me on this, but I maintain that it will be me who
>> will have to explain it if someone files a bug about it.
A bug about broken package descriptions? Joy, you are not responsible
for broken package descriptions that expect some frontends to interpret
them (_no_ other frontend does that, it's not in policy or anywhere).
You can simply hand over those misguided ones to me, feel free.
It isn't that uncommon that some HTML-producing packages might have
text like this in their description:
It does additionally escape > to > (which most people simply forget
and ignore).
It is rather the maintainers of such packages that will file bugs
because the description doesn't show up correct, than users who think
the description is not text/plain (which it is).
> I think what Gerard and Denis are saying is that if a package
... but it's still Gerfried ,)
> description contains HTML entities that the package maintainer is
> expecting to be normalised by the thing reading the description, then
> that is a bug in the package description. The script we're discussing
> doesn't have to cater for it, right?
Right.
So long,
Alfie
--
ohne speicher, tastatur, mouse, pladde, monitor, also nur die Hardware...
-- _DeadBull_ in #debian.de
Attachment:
pgpEA1pkt22tw.pgp
Description: PGP signature