# Bcc: control reassign 315538 lintian thanks On 06/07/21 14:43 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar said ... > 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.
This certainly looks like what lintian [wsc]ould be doing. I tried a bad changes file (double signed) and this is what lintian says right now. $ lintian -I axel_1.1-3_i386.changes Use of uninitialized value in string ne at /usr/bin/lintian line 647. E: axel_1.1-3_i386.changes: no-description-in-changes-file W: axel_1.1-3_i386.changes: no-urgency-in-changes-file While this is not really an identification of the problem (I poked at lintian and noticed that it tries to look for key:value pairs after the signature), I suppose it is a good check to indicate that something is seriously wrong. Essentially, I am suggesting running dput with lintian checking as a solid workaround for the feature requested. I will leave it to the lintian maintainers to comment on the double-sign detection. Cheers, Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://appaji.net/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
