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@xxxxxx> 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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
