[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#160827: syntax of the maintainer name in the Maintainer: field

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:01:31PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Why can't we just use UTF-8? There is even (my) pending policy proposal
> > for this #99933, and consensus was that it should be accepted, there are
> > just few (pseudo)issues holding it back.
> I've read #99933 and #143941, and I see very little that's relevant.

I had only the charset in mind, of course.

> What are these (pseudo)issues?

Citing Manoj Srivastava:

  Hmm. Seems like we want to support utf-8 for the future,
  though perhaps that can wait until we get tool support for
  that. dpkg-query should start supporting it soon. I guess we
  should shelve this until we have better support from the tool
  chain. (we do not have consensus, in any case)

well, the sentence about dpkg-query was misinformed, since
it handles utf-8 fine, Manoj was confused by dpkg-query's
author promising to add character conversion.

Otherwise, all dpkg related tools I can think of were working
with utf-8 well, now the appearance of new perl messed up things
a bit and there are bugs to be hunted. Nothing catastrophic in any
case, and once my new e-mail is sorted out, I am going to start
using diacritics in my name for Maintainer: field. In UTF-8,
of course.
Now that RedHat drastically switched itself into UTF-8, we may
expect much better upstream support for UTF-8 from different tools.

It is sad to be just following RH's way instead of leading it
ourselves, but well, that's the life :-)

| Radovan Garabík http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__    garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk     |
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Reply to: