FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-13-2012, 12:51 AM
Christoph Anton Mitterer
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

Hey.

Apart from the question whether this RFC is anyhow reasonable...

On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Category: Best Current Practice
Can a BCP deprecate stuff which is standardised by RFCs from the
standards track?


Cheers,
Chris.
 
Old 09-13-2012, 12:59 AM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 02:51:41 AM Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Hey.
>
> Apart from the question whether this RFC is anyhow reasonable...
>
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Category: Best Current Practice
>
> Can a BCP deprecate stuff which is standardised by RFCs from the
> standards track?

Anything that's X dash is most likely non-standard.

It can't AIUI, but this is mostly about future usage and not going back and
creating a lot of namespace churn.

Scott K


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1565189.YYgQ6eycaS@scott-latitude-e6320
 
Old 09-13-2012, 08:18 AM
Simon Josefsson
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> writes:

> Hey.
>
> Apart from the question whether this RFC is anyhow reasonable...
>
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Category: Best Current Practice
> Can a BCP deprecate stuff which is standardised by RFCs from the
> standards track?

What RFCs are you thinking of? The "X-" stuff was removed from e-mail
standards long time ago, IIRC.

/Simon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87mx0upc87.fsf@latte.josefsson.org">http://lists.debian.org/87mx0upc87.fsf@latte.josefsson.org
 
Old 09-13-2012, 02:55 PM
Tanguy Ortolo
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

Charles Plessy, 2012-09-13 01:55+0200:
> I would like to share with you the recently published RFC 6648, which
> deprecates the use of "X-" prefixes in "application protocols"

Perhaps we should consider changing the way we write user-defined
control fields (policy §5.7)? Instead of things like
XBCS-Comment: This field will appear in the changes, binary and
source control files

we may want to write:
tanguy.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …

or:
team.alioth.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …

--
,--.
: /` ) Tanguy Ortolo <xmpp:tanguy@ortolo.eu>
| `-' Debian Developer <irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy>
\_


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2ss48$1vq$1@ger.gmane.org
 
Old 09-13-2012, 03:08 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 02:55:04 PM Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Charles Plessy, 2012-09-13 01:55+0200:
> > I would like to share with you the recently published RFC 6648, which
> > deprecates the use of "X-" prefixes in "application protocols"
>
> Perhaps we should consider changing the way we write user-defined
> control fields (policy §5.7)? Instead of things like
> XBCS-Comment: This field will appear in the changes, binary and
> source control files
>
> we may want to write:
> tanguy.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …
>
> or:
> team.alioth.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …

I don't think so. The premise of RFC 6648 is that generally X dash fields
either never get updated to "proper" fields or if they do it creates confusion
about which is correct.

In the case of Debian, we do want to distinguish between experimental and
"proper" fields in control files and we do update them, so I think the premise
of RFC 6648 doesn't apply to Debian.

Scott K


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1643317.6Qy5rd4XGC@scott-latitude-e6320
 
Old 09-13-2012, 03:14 PM
Guillem Jover
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 14:55:04 +0000, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Charles Plessy, 2012-09-13 01:55+0200:
> > I would like to share with you the recently published RFC 6648, which
> > deprecates the use of "X-" prefixes in "application protocols"
>
> Perhaps we should consider changing the way we write user-defined
> control fields (policy §5.7)?

Why?

> Instead of things like
> XBCS-Comment: This field will appear in the changes, binary and
> source control files

The X gets discarded on output, so the field names will not have an X-
in the changes, binary or source control files. It should really be
thought more as a marker for the BCS flags than as a private field
marker.

> we may want to write:
> tanguy.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …
>
> or:
> team.alioth.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …

There's already the Private- prefix which can be further namespaced,
is preserved on output, and avoids dpkg-deb giving warnings about
unknown fields (documented in deb-src-control(5)).

thanks,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120913151442.GA25610@gaara.hadrons.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120913151442.GA25610@gaara.hadrons.org
 
Old 09-13-2012, 11:39 PM
Christoph Anton Mitterer
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 20:59 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Anything that's X dash is most likely non-standard.
Of course,... I referred to that other RFCs may still expect the
"experimental" semantics of "X-"


> It can't AIUI, but this is mostly about future usage and not going back and
> creating a lot of namespace churn.
I just quickly read over the RFC, but it seemed to be doing just that?!


On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:18 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> What RFCs are you thinking of? The "X-" stuff was removed from e-mail
> standards long time ago, IIRC.
Well I don't have all RFCs in mind,... but weren't there others, that
gave "x-" that meaning for e.g. MIME types or URI schemas?


Cheers,
Chris.
 
Old 09-14-2012, 07:04 AM
Simon Josefsson
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> writes:

> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:18 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> What RFCs are you thinking of? The "X-" stuff was removed from e-mail
>> standards long time ago, IIRC.
> Well I don't have all RFCs in mind,... but weren't there others, that
> gave "x-" that meaning for e.g. MIME types or URI schemas?

I believe people have discovered that the x- scheme is a bad idea for
several reasons, and those reasons apply to MIME types and URI schemes
as well. And possibly also what X- is used for in Debian. RFC 6648
doesn't obsolete the earlier RFCs, but describe actions that should be
considered when the earlier RFCs are eventually updated.

/Simon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87ehm5nkyz.fsf@latte.josefsson.org">http://lists.debian.org/87ehm5nkyz.fsf@latte.josefsson.org
 
Old 09-14-2012, 12:41 PM
Ian Jackson
 
Default "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

Guillem Jover writes ("Re: "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648."):
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 14:55:04 +0000, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> > Instead of things like
> > XBCS-Comment: This field will appear in the changes, binary and
> > source control files
>
> The X gets discarded on output, so the field names will not have an X-
> in the changes, binary or source control files. It should really be
> thought more as a marker for the BCS flags than as a private field
> marker.

Exactly so.

> > we may want to write:
> > tanguy.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …
> >
> > or:
> > team.alioth.debian.org-BCS-Comment: …
>
> There's already the Private- prefix which can be further namespaced,
> is preserved on output, and avoids dpkg-deb giving warnings about
> unknown fields (documented in deb-src-control(5)).

I think it would be better to encourage people to use proper
officially supported field names.

Or, to be honest, perhaps it would be better simply to remove that
warning from dpkg-deb. Nowadays almost all .deb control files are
made with dpkg-gencontrol and since with dpkg-gencontrol you have to
use XBCS-... for "unofficial" fields you are likely to notice
misspellings of "official" ones.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20563.9723.606770.222394@chiark.greenend.org.uk">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20563.9723.606770.222394@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org