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

Bug#671058: marked as done (lintian: DEP-3 From field - name preceeds email)

Your message dated Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:12:07 +0200
with message-id <523B0637.1090106@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#671058: lintian: DEP-3 From field - name preceeds email
has caused the Debian Bug report #671058,
regarding lintian: DEP-3 From field - name preceeds email
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
671058: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671058
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.6
Severity: wishlist

For debian/patches in DEP-3 format, please add some check to warn about
headers like this (From/Author):

    From: <dfg@example.com>
    Subject: Fix FTBFS ....

Something like:

    I: patches-header-from-missing-person-name

The tag description could suggest that the person name would be written in
full; at least consisting of two words before <>:

    From: Firstname Lastname <dfg@example.com>
    Subject: Fix FTBFS ....

There may be more than two words like in spanish names, but 99% of the cases
people have at least two identification words for the first and last
name/family name (like in Japan).

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2012-05-01 21:56, Niels Thykier wrote:
> block 671058 by 602304
> tags 671058 + moreinfo
> tags 602304 + moreinfo
> thanks
> 
> [...]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I believe I have already mentioned it in #602304, but DEP-3 does not
> mandate that the from header is in a specific format.  Supposedly, the
> format "mail@example.com (name)" variant is allowed too.
>   Also, we still (to my knowledge) cannot relibly detect DEP-3 from
> non-DEP-3 patches nor do we have a parser supporting the format (hench
> the block on 602304).
> 
> [...]

Since I just wontfix'ed and closed #602304 as "not going to happen",
this bug is now also being closed for the same reason.

~Niels

--- End Message ---
Reply to: