Re: Bug#203145: (uploaders in control) Any activity?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:45:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:01:08PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:54:11PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > Is there any activity on this issue? I just stubled upon this when I
> > > needed to know whether a multi-line uploaders was okay. Since uploaders
> > > isn't in policy at all, this is an undecided: I cannot possibly break
> > > policy by using something undocumented, can I?
> > >
> > > In any case, there are multiple packages using a multiline uploaders
> > > (don't recall my heart which, could checkout if needed), and all
> > > supporting scripts and katie etc seem to support it.
> > >
> > > So, I propose to explicitly allow that. It makes it better readable for
> > > the human eye, and for the computerized eye, it doesn't matter.
> > > (if it isn't explicitly allowed, it's disallowed).
> >
> > I tend to agree. Cc'ing bug.
>
> We could take the opportunuity to document Uploaders: in policy, since
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this bug exactly _about_ documenting
Uploaders in policy?
> it is widely used. Something to note is that in contrast to the
> Maintainer: field, names in Uploaders: cannot contains ',' since it is
> the field separator. wmaker has this 'bug'.
Good catch, why not for consistencies sake, disallow ',' for maintainers
too? I really fail to see a useful use of a ',' in a maintainer field,
it only adds to confusion.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: