What I'm going to do: Was: RFC: Description text in packages

[Nikolay Vladimirov]

2008/12/17 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>:
>
>
> Le Mer 17 décembre 2008 12:56, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> Le Mer 17 décembre 2008 12:19, Richard Hughes a écrit :
>>
>>> * Fri Feb 08 2008  Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
>>> - 1:1.09-3
>>> ⌚ gcc 4.3 rebuild
>>>
>>> So, you've discussed those changes with upstream, defined a set of
>>> enumerated values, and standardised the other spec files right?
>>
>> This is plain UTF-8 text that passes the current guidelines, that
>> passes rpmlint, and without non-standard magic post-processing markup
>> application side. It works in vi, emacs, eclipse, gedit, etc the same
>> way.
>
> And it seems to work in all the MUAs we've used too.
>
> OTOH your stuff will only work in PK, and in the course of trying to
> workaround badly encoded text you'll break correctly encoded text (and
> probably mess up the display thoroughly for some locales).
>
> I guess I'll just have to add packagekit to the list of apps with
> broken unicode support we track in the Fonts SIG. You call that ego I
> call that regression.
>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

Should we bring this to FESCO ?
Since as I understand you're saying the current solution is a
regression and the only good solution is AllRPMdistros wide.

-- 
NV