Re: Strange Dependancies
apharris@burrito.onshore.com (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 06.04.98 in <[🔎] oaogyf5r2g.fsf@burrito.fake>:
> Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@feedback.net.ar> writes:
> > I think we should have a more formal definition of Debian's files, and
> > which is the right way to parse them...
>
> Or, for slink, we just strip down dpkg (take out package dependancy
> calculation), put /var/lib/dpkg/info/* and /var/lib/dpkg/status into
> some managable, scalable format, and use XML for the control files.
>
> If we use XML, not only will we be standards based, but with our
> little (20 line or so?) DTD, we'll have no ambiguities on how
> instances of our debian control DTD is parsed, normalized, and
> validated.
Umm, incidentally, we _are_ standards-based. The format is taken from RFC
822. And that one clearly allows and defines how to handle the case APT
was having troubles with.
However, we have in the manual that some fields should not actually use
this feature.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: