On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:47:08AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
It was always my intent that this field would in be a subset of RFC822/5322 sender/recipient field formt.We should never have diverged from 822 here. So that we ever permitted commas in the name part was an egregious mistake. IMO the only question for this bug is is precisely what subsets of 822 format is allowed. The work to be done here is: * Review 5322 and decide which subset to allow. Probably, just unquoted Name <Email> and one-quoted-bloc "Name" <Email>. * Write this down in policy, making many programs insta-nonomcpliant. * Go around fixing all the software. I wanted to reply specifically to this one comment:There is no reason to split Maintainer fields, because they should be nothing to split.This is a very bad argument. We should not syntactically prevent a future evolution of our policy to permit co-maintainership, or normal use of this same field by downstreams with a different policy. Furthermore, we have the Uploaders field now. Clearly Maintainer and Uploaders ought to be in the same syntax.
This last line is somewhat surprising to me. Clearly Uploaders shouldn't exist if Maintainer allows multiple emails.
-- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
