Richard Hughes wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 09:31 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> PackageKit is, of course, your baby > > No, it's an upstream project where we try to work with al the distros to > solve a common problem. It's certainly not my baby. > In that case, you're going to have a lot of problems with adding Markdown in PackageKit upstream. I doubt heavily that we'll be able to get people within Fedora to agree to format their %descriptions as markdown let alone the larger community of distributions. I've already mentioned reStructuredText which is popular in the python community and preformatted text (whether ASCii or utf-8) is also going to have adherents. >> but you're trying to add formatting >> to a field that doesn't have any formatting rules inside Fedora or >> cross-distro. > > Right. And I think markdown in spec files and update descriptions makes > perfect sense. If the text doesn't have such formatting, or it's > invalid, PK will just return the text with no processing. > The problem is that Markdown and other non-intrusive formats (like reStructuredText) don't have enough information to tell if it's "invalid". For instance, if my Bodhi comments have: # Fix an issue with char *foobar and all void* on gcc-5 # Fix call to __init__ in python bindings. Markdown will mangle what I intended because there are three constructs in there that look like valid Markdown. To use a non-intrusive format, we need to specify the format being used either in a specification or as metadata to the %description tag. Both of those solutions would have to be hashed out with the rpm authors. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
