Jonas wrote ~5 hours ago: > Packaging tools does some variable expansion on control file.
Gregor wrote ~3 hours ago:
> Or "displaying tools". Where do you see the sentence like this?
[...]
> I can reproduce the missing word when building the package and calling
> debc.
Jonas wrote ~3 hours ago:
> the ${NAME} syntax was _exactly_ what I suspected: That syntax is
> expanded¹ by packaging tools.
[...]
> ¹ Used most often for e.g. ${misc:Depends} but also applies within
> long description - see fonts-noto for an example where statistics
> gathered at build time is included in long description.
Gregor wrote ~1 hour ago:
> Yes, but that's dpkg-gencontrol etc. during _build_; there's no good
> reason IMO to do variable substitution when _displaying_ the text.
I prefectly agree. Seems to me that I was talking about packaging time
all along, whereas _you_ introduces visualizers (seems debc merely
_emulates_ display of long description from unbuilt source).
>> To preserve, escape the dollar:
>>
>>> [...] namely, in the form $NAME or \${NAME}.
>>
>> ...or perhaps \{ does the trick, not quite sure...
>
> Yup, trying something like this might make more sense than to find out
> which tools display it incorrectly.
Please forget about visualizers: Try grab the .deb package (e.g. wget
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/libs/libstring-expand-perl/libstring-expand-perl_0.04-2_all.deb)
and dig out its control file (I use Midnight Commander for that) and
look at the raw file - the word is missing!
(I guess you confuse this with e.g. indented bulleted strings, which is
merely a consensus among some visualizers).
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
