From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17819 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2004 15:23:47 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Oct 2004 15:23:47 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CGJ4U-0003Xt-P0 for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:23:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 7071 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2004 15:23:45 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 15318 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2004 15:23:45 +0000 From: Brian To: gentoo-portage-dev In-Reply-To: <20041009145316.1c788f31@snowdrop.home> References: <20041008172930.29a60601@andy.genone.homeip.net> <200410081626.39210.luke-jr@utopios.org> <20041008174024.18e02618@snowdrop.home> <20041009145316.1c788f31@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1097335478.11651.87.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 08:24:38 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] changelog encoding X-Archives-Salt: 97c9d059-675b-49a4-96b6-b96a19bdcb11 X-Archives-Hash: 05dd9c6fe22fb9157d8ced9c57f72433 On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 06:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:05:16 -0500 (EST) Ed Grimm > wrote: > | On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > As I recall, 127 is flaky. Come to think of it, so is 0-31ish as > | > well. So maybe I should've said > | > [a-zA-Z0-9\-_,.<>?/\\;:'@#~\]{}\+="$%^&* ] or something... > | > Basically, anything even the slightest bit flaky, plus newlines, is > | > prone to explode. > | > | I hope you like long lines. > > Well, remember that there's no standard way of doing newlines. Or that > there're at least three standards, depending upon how you look at it. > > Eh, not that this is really relevant anyway. All that matters is that > ASCII is insufficient and that UTF-8 is most likely the best > alternative. Thank you. I have changed porthole's code to try decode(utf_8), then try decode(iso-8859-1). Failing either of those Porthole will display an unknown encoding error and to please report it to bugs.gentoo.org as well as porthole's bug tracker. -- Brian -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list