Seems my wording was not completely clear and fool-proof, so I try to clarify:
On 13.03.2008 11:07, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 09:59 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 13.03.2008 07:25, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>> "VS" == Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi writes:
VS> And by the way, in my opinion the discussion should not be only VS> about Unicode, but about restricting package names even to a VS> subset of ASCII (let's say eg. a-z, A-Z, 0-9, -, +, _, .).
FWIW, +1
This is why we need a concrete proposal to vote on. Things would have gone much better if we had one.
+1 One of the problems I have with "ban packages with unicode names" is that it doesn't consider what to do when a package name upstream is non-ASCii.
Well, I see your point, but on the other hand: do we need to have details like those you outline in the guidelines?
In this case: Yes. Package names (And rpm-file-names) are a fundamental basis of packaging.
Further: And does the FPC really need and want to solve details like this?
In this case: Yes. This problem is such kind of fundamental that it has to be solved.
When I said "details" in those two and other parts of my mail I referred to the "what to do when a package name upstream is non-ASCii" part in the post I replied to and not the "ban packages with unicode names" (to which I indirectly gave my +1 earlier in the mail). Sorry if that wasn't obvious.
[...]
CU knurd