Le mardi 26 février 2008 à 20:55 +0200, Axel Thimm a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:45AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Pro ASCII:
> * Hard to type unicode package names, therefore it is a usability problem.
The solution to this particular problem has already been suggested by
someone else: just have an ASCII transliteration alias as additional
Provides.
> * Some pieces of software won't handle unicode package names
and will need
> to be fixed.
That's too bad for them :p
Also consider that package names define the file set that is to
bemirrored and you thus need to assume that all mirrors properly
support utf on their filesystems and their ftp/web/rsync servers.
Is this really a problem? File systems do not interpret file names, so
they are going to store byte strings as they get them. The typical UTF-8
problems you get are apps that write invalid UTF-8 names because they
think they'll be interpreted as something else, or apps that display
UTF-8 names wrong because they think they've been written in another
encoding (and try to translate from this encoding to UTF-8), but
low-level mirroring tools are just going to reproduce file names as-is.
(that is unless you use one of the few non-unix/non-posix systems that
store filename encoding information in the filesystem, but those can not
import foreign filesystem data without the admin defining the encoding
to use anyway)
--
Nicolas Mailhot