KISS in Guidelines/Micro-Optimizations

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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 at 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