Le Jeu 20 mars 2008 09:20, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 08:31 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 04:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> > 2. I do not agree to the "When Upstream Naming is outside ..."
> > This section is unnecessarily/avoidable adding confusion for
> > maintainers. Non-ASCII names have always been banned rsp.
> > impossible ever since Linux exists => this is a non-issue.
> That's blatantly false.
I guess I don't have to mention that I whole heartily disagree.
You can disagree all you want that's a plain fact hard. I did the
tests and you didn't. In fact they show a the breakage when it happens
is in the upper layers bolted over rpm in the recent years, and I
doubt this was a conscious design decision of the people who wrote
You could probably shove an 8-bit iso-8859-1 name (which is not the
same thing as 7-bit ASCII) through the whole infrastructure today and
it wouldn't blink.
> They've not been "banned", otherwise the
> document would not be written today,
This document has been written, because you and your écollier-fonts
package submissing are challenging what had been "common sense" to
experienced users, so far.
> and they've not been "impossible".
You still seem to refuse to understand the issue.
Installing your package is technically close to impossible to many
users, because they are not able to type/read/display its name
Nevertheless the plain fact is that they've not been impossible and
they've not been banned before.
May-be you don't see this problem, because "é" is
common in your
culture - To others, it's unreadable, undisplayable "fly dirt" (German
hacker slang for unreadable, undisplayable characters), "Greek" as
Englishmen might be calling it.
I perfectly understand the problem, which is why I object to you
pretending it's something else to shore up your arguments.
> What changed is that the 8-bits encoding that passed through
> being replaced by an encoding that lifts all the
> incompatibility problems and adds some technical requirements that
> be taken care of.
I disagree. SuSE and Debian have it right.
Which again are soft policies, not the impossibility you pretend in