On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 04:09:25PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > dput doesn't refuse to operate on doubly-signed .changes. But katie > > will choke on those, and is not able to extract the Uploader, so the > > uploader won't get any feedback. > [...] > > It's not large, but when it happens, there is no feedback on what > > happened, as the upload queue processor does *not* fail on it but > > reports success back, and then you get silence. > > What I'm missing here is why not fix the tools that don't give the right > feedback rather than trying to patch every possible method of uploading > new packages? I'd attack the problem at the source.
This would mean that the queue processer would need to gain a fuzzy parser: need to cope with random data prepended, and still find out/guess what's the problem. It's much easier for dput (and co) to gain some check whether the signed content actually looks like a .changes file, that is, consists of "Key: value" pairs and has at least the mandatory fields (and maybe also check whether the email address listed looks like a valid address and not something @local or so). This would also catch other potential mistakes. The queue processing software uses a standard 'mail header' parser, which breaks parsing on the first newline, which happens to be before the intended content. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
