Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible

[Jeremy Shaw]

At Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:51:09 -0400,
Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 08:02:47PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > "Debian control files are almost, but not quite, entirely unlike
> > rfc822"
> 
> I think that's the right approach for arch as well -- just make the
> documentation correct.
> 
> "Arch patch logs use an RFC822-style[*] header syntax:
>    <definition>"
> 
> If you want to use an existing RFC822 parser to parse them, your parser
> should be flexible enough to handle the difference.
> 
> [Note that for the Date: field, I personally think the current situation
>  (with two headers) is sort of silly, and would have preferred _just_ the
>  Standard-Date: header -- called "Date:" -- with a time-zone indicator.  But
>  it's too late without lots of backward-compatibility hacks.  If you're
>  writing a parser, then you've got to deal with the existing situation, no
>  matter what changes in the future.]
> 
> -Miles

Agreed. As I mentioned in my original message, fixing the bug just
creates more headaches (needing to know two formats). So it's probably
best to just note in the docs that while the patch format is nearly
RFC2822 compatable, the following differences have been observed.

(1) Date field is not compliant
(2) lines in terminated with \n instead of \r\n
(3) anything else people notice

Perhaps this could be noted in the same place that all the official
headers are documented?

Jeremy Shaw.
--

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. 
Unless you are the 
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy 
or disclose to anyone 
the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received 
the message in error, 
please advise the sender and delete the message.  Thank you.