Bug#203145: (uploaders in control) Any activity?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:45:15 +0100, Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> said:
> 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 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'.
Why should we make something policy just because it is widely
used? Policy is not a dpkg manual, after all. Uploaders is not a
required field anyway.
This goes against the grain for policy being a minimalist
document -- we should not make policy dictats unless there is a
demonstrated need (usually where we need to standardize between
several equally good alternatives in order to improve integration).
manoj
--
Would you care to drift aimlessly in my direction?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: