[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#172132: marked as done (pkgreport.cgi doesn't cope with & where & is expected)

Your message dated Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:18:51 +0000
with message-id <20021210231850.GA11636@riva.ucam.org>
and subject line [debbugs] Bug#172132: pkgreport.cgi doesn't cope with &amp; where & is expected
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Dec 2002 16:08:45 +0000
>From linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk Sat Dec 07 10:08:44 2002
Return-path: <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>
Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 18KhVS-00053h-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 10:08:42 -0600
Received: from youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk ([] helo=pentagram.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk)
	by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2)
	id 18KhVQ-0002fk-0U
	for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:08:41 +0000
Received: from riscpc ([])
	by pentagram.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18KhM8-00052d-00
	for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:59:04 +0000
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:37:56 +0000
From: Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 4BA129F10C%linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Messenger-Pro/2.60a (MsgServe/2.01beta2) (RISC-OS/4.02) POPstar/2.03
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: pkgreport.cgi doesn't cope with &amp; where & is expected
X-Editor: Zap 1.45 (06 Nov 2002), ZapEmail 0.27 (06 Dec 2002) test-4 (26)
X-SDate: Sat, 3385 Sep 1993 15:37:56 +0000
X-Message-Flag: Outlook Express is broken. Upgrade to mail(1).
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="20896110--1214158940--1415285327"
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0

This message is in MIME format which your mailer apparently does not support.
You either require a newer version of your software which supports MIME, or
a separate MIME decoding utility.  Alternatively, ask the sender of this
message to resend it in a different format.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Package: debbugs
Version: 2.3-4
Tags: patch

Arguably, pkgreport.cgi etc. not coping with &amp; where & is expected is
correct behaviour, but there are one or two browsers which don't decode
character entities in URLs (in the case of at least one such browser, it was
a design decision based on & in URLs often being a literal & rather than
marking the start of a character entity).

Better to be liberal in what you accept :-)

| Darren Salt       | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| Linux PC, Risc PC | youmustbejoking  | Northumberland
| No Wodniws here   | demon co uk      | Toon Army
|   <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/> (PGP 2.6, GPG keys)

Deprive a mirror of its silver and even the Czar won't see his face.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="entity.patch"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="entity.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- debbugs_2.3-4/cgi/common.pl~
=0D+++ debbugs_2.3-4/cgi/common.pl
=0D@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
=0D     } else {
=0D         return;
=0D     }
=0D-    foreach (split(/&/,$in)) {
=0D+    foreach (split(/&amp;|&/,$in)) {
=0D         s/\+/ /g;
=0D         ($key, $val) =3D split(/=3D/,$_,2);
=0D         $key=3D~s/%(..)/pack("c",hex($1))/ge;

Received: (at 172132-done) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Dec 2002 23:19:03 +0000
>From cjwatson@flatline.org.uk Tue Dec 10 17:19:02 2002
Return-path: <cjwatson@flatline.org.uk>
Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium) [] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 18LteX-0005lU-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:19:01 -0600
Received: from host217-35-41-25.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([] helo=riva.lab.dotat.at)
	by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #16)
	id 18LteQ-0005FN-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:18:55 +0000
Received: from cjwatson by riva.lab.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18LteN-00032V-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:18:51 +0000
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:18:51 +0000
From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
To: Thomas Smith <tgs@finbar.dyndns.org>
Cc: 172132-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: [debbugs] Bug#172132: pkgreport.cgi doesn't cope with &amp; where & is expected
Message-ID: <20021210231850.GA11636@riva.ucam.org>
References: <[🔎] 4BA129F10C%linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> <[🔎] 20021207195649.GA23380@cibalia.gkvk.hr> <[🔎] 4BA148FBE5%linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> <[🔎] 20021207225400.GA27273@cibalia.gkvk.hr> <[🔎] 4BA15CA470%linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> <[🔎] 20021208132934.GG11070@riva.ucam.org> <[🔎] 20021208135329.GA11747@riva.ucam.org> <[🔎] 20021210225042.GA27644@megafauna.finbar.dyndns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20021210225042.GA27644@megafauna.finbar.dyndns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Delivered-To: 172132-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-16.0 required=5.0

On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 05:50:42PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:53:29PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:29:34PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure that having the CGI script understand '&amp;' is the
> > > wrong answer. Using a totally different separator to avoid the whole
> > > issue is probably the right answer.
> > 
> > I've arranged for the CGI scripts to understand ';' as well as '&' as an
> > argument separator now. If there are no problems with this then I'll
> > look at changing the links we generate.
> As an added bonus, &amp; will now just look like an extra argument,
> fixing the bug.  Was that intentional?

Actually no, but, now you come to mention it, it does the job. :)
Closing. We can switch to ';' in due course or not, depending on what
seems sensible.

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: