#975690 lintian: detect invalid Uploaders fields that are missing separating commas

Package:
lintian
Source:
lintian
Submitter:
Paul Wise
Date:
2021-02-05 23:33:05 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
Blocked By:
Bug Title
401452

  17

 Standardize syntax of the name in the Maintainer control field

wishlist stable testing unstable 7 months ago

509935

  34

 decide whether Uploaders is parsed per RFC 5322

wishlist stable testing unstable over 5 years ago

#975690#5
Date:
2020-11-25 06:49:57 UTC
From:
To:
fields that is missing a single comma in the middle of the list.

   $ apt-cache showsrc yubico-piv-tool | grep -E '^$|^Version|^Uploaders'
   Version: 2.0.0-2
   Uploaders: nicoo <nicoo@debian.org>, Alessio Di Mauro <alessio@yubico.com>, Klas Lindfors <klas@yubico.com>, Dain Nilsson <dain@yubico.com>

   Version: 2.1.1-1
   Uploaders: Alessio Di Mauro <alessio@yubico.com>, Dain Nilsson <dain@yubico.com> Klas Lindfors <klas@yubico.com>, nicoo <nicoo@debian.org>,

   Version: 2.1.1-2
   Uploaders: Alessio Di Mauro <alessio@yubico.com>, Dain Nilsson <dain@yubico.com> Klas Lindfors <klas@yubico.com>, nicoo <nicoo@debian.org>,
                                                                                 ^^^^^

This is a violation of Debian Policy 5.6.3:

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#uploaders

   List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the package,
   if any. The format of each entry is the same as that of the Maintainer
   field, and multiple entries *must be comma separated*.

Please detect this and emit an error about it, probably it should also
get onto the ftp-master lintian reject list.
#975690#10
Date:
2020-11-25 07:07:35 UTC
From:
To:
I think that Debian needs to know what the format of Uploaders is supposed to
be, before it is reasonable to hope that lintian can check that it is correct.
(well ok, policy often works the other way around, but there needs to be the
rough consensus first rather than lintian driving policy)

Perhaps there is a rough consensus in these discussions so far:

https://bugs.debian.org/401452
https://bugs.debian.org/509935
https://bugs.debian.org/962277

cheers
Stuart
(who would welcome a resolution too: see https://bugs.debian.org/686638)
#975690#15
Date:
2020-11-25 12:34:06 UTC
From:
To:
Hi.
all address fields. (There are others, but this was most capable in
parsing Unicode "phrases".) The module states that it "parses input
string[s] sequentially according to RFC 5322 grammar." In the given
package, the last two uploaders are simply discarded:

$ bin/lintian -T mail-contact -T trimmed-field --no-tag-display-limit
/mirror/debian/pool/main/y/yubico-piv-tool/yubico-piv-tool_2.1.1-2.dsc
C: yubico-piv-tool source: mail-contact Maintainer "Debian
Authentication Maintainers"
<pkg-auth-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
C: yubico-piv-tool source: mail-contact Uploaders "Alessio Di Mauro"
<alessio@yubico.com>
C: yubico-piv-tool source: mail-contact Uploaders "Dain Nilsson"
<dain@yubico.com>
C: yubico-piv-tool source: trimmed-field Maintainer Debian
Authentication Maintainers
<pkg-auth-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
C: yubico-piv-tool source: trimmed-field Uploaders Alessio Di Mauro
<alessio@yubico.com>, Dain Nilsson <dain@yubico.com> Klas Lindfors
<klas@yubico.com>, nicoo <nicoo@debian.org>,
[some output omitted]

Perhaps the RFC 5322 grammar is too lenient with respect to errors,
and focuses instead on sending to at least some recipients.

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner

[1] https://metacpan.org/pod/Email::Address::XS#parse
#975690#22
Date:
2021-02-05 23:30:08 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Another package is wordwarvi 1.0.3-1. The situation there is further
described under #982047.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner