Comma in Maintainer field (Was: problems in gjots2 and Debian)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:52:18PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:00:51PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Instead, tools grew to tolerate commas here rather than treat them as
> > separators (because they would mishandle the erroneous packages).
> Is this the main problem with fixing the Policy? Does someone have a plan
> with this?
I checked UDD for real cases:
udd=# select distinct maintainer from packages where maintainer like '%,%' order by maintainer;
maintainer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Adam C. Powell, IV" <hazelsct@debian.org>
Adam C. Powell, IV <hazelsct@debian.org>
Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
John H. Robinson, IV <jaqque@debian.org>
"Natural Language Processing, Japanese" <pkg-nlp-ja-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Natural Language Processing, Japanese <pkg-nlp-ja-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, +
Holger Levsen <holger@debian.org>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@debian.org>
TransNexus, Inc. <support@transnexus.com>
(9 rows)
>From my understanding the names in quotes should be parsed correctly, right?
This leaves 7 maintainer names
udd=# select distinct maintainer from packages where maintainer like '%,%' and maintainer not like '"%' order by maintainer;
maintainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam C. Powell, IV <hazelsct@debian.org>
Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
John H. Robinson, IV <jaqque@debian.org>
Natural Language Processing, Japanese <pkg-nlp-ja-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, +
Holger Levsen <holger@debian.org>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@debian.org>
TransNexus, Inc. <support@transnexus.com>
(7 rows)
Out of these there are clearly two bugs that violate our current
udd=# select distinct package, maintainer from packages where maintainer like '%>%,%'order by maintainer;
package | maintainer
------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gir1.0-gdata-0.0 | Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
libgdata7 | Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
libgdata-common | Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
libgdata-dev | Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
libgdata-doc | Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Sebastian Dröge <slomo@debian.org>
youtube-dl | Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, +
| Holger Levsen <holger@debian.org>
(6 rows)
I think we should start filing bug reports against packages
that do not match our current understanding of that field
(and lintian should throw an error about this).
Currently that definitely fits the last query but if we
intend to enhance the maintainer field to some later point
in time we should also ask the other 5 maintainers above
to add quotes around their names.
What do you think?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: