On Sat, 16 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I do that work my own project and it works perfectly fine.
>
> The part that I want to carry on is that conceptually, a field
> header is a single line, though it might be distributed over several
> physical lines (continuation lines). I d
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > I don't know what this “field header” is that you're referring to. Do
> > you mean “field”? There's no header involved, only fields, AFAICT.
>
> The things we're talking about (a key/value pair, basically) is called a
> "header field" in RFC 5322
Ben Finney writes:
> I don't know what this “field header” is that you're referring to. Do
> you mean “field”? There's no header involved, only fields, AFAICT.
The things we're talking about (a key/value pair, basically) is called a
"header field" in RFC 5322. The header part is of course becau
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I think not, since there treating a field header as a single
> logical line or as a line with continuation lines is conceptually
> indistinguishable (I do not think we need to change any code with the
> new explanation).
[…]
> The part that I want to
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> It is my recollection that each field in the control file (and
> perhaps others) was supposed to follow rfc822 (now rfc5322), and that
> says:
Well, that's definitely not currently the case, and we just added
support for folding in 3.8.0 (IIRC) for several sp
On Sat, May 16 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 09:31:26PM +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 02:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >
>> > It is my recollection that each field in the control file (and
>> > perhaps others) was supposed to follow
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 09:31:26PM +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 02:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > It is my recollection that each field in the control file (and
> > perhaps others) was supposed to follow rfc822 (now rfc5322), and that
> > says:
> > ,--
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 02:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> It is my recollection that each field in the control file (and
> perhaps others) was supposed to follow rfc822 (now rfc5322), and that
> says:
> ,
> |Each header field is logically a single line of characters comprisi
On Fri, May 15 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>
>> CCing -policy, do we need to update policy to allow Binary: fields
>> over multiple lines?
>
> Yes. (But I certainly have no objections to doing so.)
>
>> Currently it only says that the fields are comma-separated and
>> spa
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> CCing -policy, do we need to update policy to allow Binary: fields
> over multiple lines?
Yes. (But I certainly have no objections to doing so.)
> Currently it only says that the fields are comma-separated and
> space-separated. Does "space" include newlines like in t
tag 494714 + patch
thanks
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Bastian Blank wrote:
> dpkg-genchanges should fold lines in the output to a sane length. There
> is a package in the archive (linux-modules-extra-2.6) which produces a
> 25k long Binary line, which is cropped by gpg during signing.
I guess we should
11 matches
Mail list logo
