Re: [gentoo-pms] [PATCH] Make it clear that PMs are allowed to handle 'invalid' names.

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Micha³ Górny wrote:

>> >  \section{Restrictions upon Names}
>> >
>> > -No name may be empty. Package managers must not impose fixed upper boundaries upon the length of any
>> > -name. A package manager should indicate or reject any name that is invalid according to these rules.
>> > +No name may be empty. Package managers must not impose fixed upper
>> > +boundaries upon the length of any name. A package manager should
>> > +indicate or reject any name that is invalid according to these rules.
>> > +Package managers are allowed to accept names not following those rules.

[Restored proper line breaks, for readability.]

>> "Here's some rules.  You must abide by them.  Or you can ignore them."

The existing spec only says "a package manager should indicate or
reject any name that is invalid". So it is sufficient if the PM emits
a warning, even with the current spec.

> That's wording ulm suggested,

Huh, where? All the wording is yours. (On IRC I had only quoted one
sentence from your previous pastebin.)

> mine was more liberal.

> The idea is that it is enough to *warn* about them but if package
> manager *can* handle them, it should.

Which the current spec already allows. I see your patch merely as a
clarification of it. (If such is needed is debatable. You should
rather convince PM authors if you want them to adhere to Postel's
Law.)

>> Offhand, and frankly I'm kind of pissed I had to even do this
>> legwork because your noisy fucking ass [...]

I've stopped reading here.

Ulrich