On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:49:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:45:15 +0100, Bill Allombert <email@example.com> said: > > 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. To avoid confusion in the future? "These are the fields that are available. You don't have to use <names>, but if you do, their syntax is <blah>". Having policy clearly define what an "Uploaders" field should look like, will avoid problems with some tools parsing a control file correctly, and others not. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Description: Digital signature