Bug#509935: decide whether Uploaders is parsed per RFC 5322
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Alternatively, we could document the permitted character set for the name
portion of the Maintainer field and exclude commas. It's annoying to do
this since commas have been supported in the past (in Maintainer, they're
unambiguous) and have only become a problem in Uploaders. We could only
restrict them in Uploaders, but the lack of symmetry strikes me as a bad
idea.
I think it is not polite to force changes in maintainer names.
We could also standardize a simple escaping mechanism of our own (allow
double quotes, for example, but require that, if used, they surround the
entire name and are stripped off by the parsing).
However we resolve this, we should probably also update the referece in
Policy to RFC 822 to refer to RFC 5322 instead, since I doubt we really
want to support source-routed e-mail addresses or similar bizarreness in
Debian control files.
Hmm, RFC5322 is not yet a standard (BTW it is not yet cited in STD1),
and anyway it still use the old semantic for compatibility (see the
"obs-" references, e.g. the section 4.4).
IMHO we should specify a subset of RFC 822, because a full 5322 parse
is IMO too complex (and BTW not so useful) to implement in all the
tools. Ev. require to use only a subset in the control file, and
to recommend a full 5322 parsing in the tools.
ciao
cate
Reply to: