Debian Bug report logs - #101815
dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support

version graph

Package: dpkg-dev; Maintainer for dpkg-dev is Dpkg Developers <debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org>; Source for dpkg-dev is src:dpkg.

Reported by: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:33:03 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: fixed

Found in version 1.9.10

Done: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>:
Bug#101815; Package dpkg-dev. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to James Troup <james@nocrew.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: 21 Jun 2001 18:58:39 +0100
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.9.10
[Not the latest, but the last non-FUBAR version I can find. Pfft.]

Please allow a 'Maintainers' (or similar) field in the .dsc file; this
is now parsed by katie and used to support packages with multiple
maintainers properly (i.e. closing bugs when they do uploads).  I
don't want this handled centrally; far too much in the archive already
is and there's no need for this to continue that trend.

--- dpkg-source.old	Thu Jun 21 18:51:55 2001
+++ dpkg-source	Thu Jun 21 18:52:53 2001
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
         if (s/^C //) {
 #print STDERR "G key >$_< value >$v<\n";
             if (m/^Source$/) { &setsourcepackage; }
-            elsif (m/^(Standards-Version|Origin|Maintainer)$/) { $f{$_}= $v; }
+            elsif (m/^(Standards-Version|Origin|Maintainers?)$/) { $f{$_}= $v; }
 	    elsif (m/^Build-(Depends|Conflicts)(-Indep)?$/i) { $f{$_}= $v; }
             elsif (s/^X[BC]*S[BC]*-//i) { $f{$_}= $v; }
             elsif (m/^(Section|Priority|Files|Bugs)$/ || m/^X[BC]+-/i) { }


-- 
James



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>:
Bug#101815; Package dpkg-dev. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 101815@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>
To: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>, 101815@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:40:01 +0200
Previously James Troup wrote:
> Please allow a 'Maintainers' (or similar) field in the .dsc file; this
> is now parsed by katie and used to support packages with multiple
> maintainers properly (i.e. closing bugs when they do uploads).

How exactly does that work? What would you exactly put in that field?
It might make more sense to allow multiple Maintainer fields.

Wichert.

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________
 /       Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool     \
| wichert@wiggy.net                   http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |



Message sent on to James Troup <james@nocrew.org>:
Bug#101815. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #13 received at 101815-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
To: <101815-submitter@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:16:07 -0500 (CDT)
How about multi-line maintainer fields?  There are several maintainers that
have commas in their name, so a simple split on ',' is problematic.
Multi-line makes that simplistic, and, the control file format already allows
for that.

In fact, let's see if dpkg-dev supports multi-line Maintainer fields.

--
adam@yakko:~/debian/mine/dpkg/v1_9/dpkg-1.9.12$ grep -A 1 ^Maintainer debian/control
Maintainer: Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>
 Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
adam@yakko:~/debian/mine/dpkg/v1_9/dpkg-1.9.12$ dpkg-genchanges | grep -A 1 ^Maintainer debian/control
Maintainer: Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>
 Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
--

So, if done this way, then no modification to dpkg-dev is needed.

Another problem I see with this, is it may allow a new upload, by an NMUer, to
change the Maintainer field, thereby making the bugs be closed, instead of
fixed.

Also, how would the Maintainers file be populated?  Debbugs would need to be
modified to parse these multiple maintainers.






Acknowledgement sent to James Troup <james@nocrew.org>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #16 received at 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
To: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
Cc: 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org, ftpmaster@debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: 21 Jun 2001 20:46:19 +0100
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> writes:

> How about multi-line maintainer fields?

That's a possibility; I don't particularly care how it's done, I just
don't want it to be a central file maintained by the ftp team.  I
didn't do multi-line maintainer field because I don't know what
supports that and what will break.

> There are several maintainers that have commas in their name, so a
> simple split on ',' is problematic.

Several?  I see 6.  Out of 843.  If this is really a problem, it can
be fixed (by implementing proper RFC822 address parsing in katie; it's
on the TODO list anyway).

> So, if done this way, then no modification to dpkg-dev is needed.

But you risk breaking any number of tools which don't expect the
Maintainer field to be multi-line.  Is that really a gain versus a 2
character change to dpkg-source ?
 
> Another problem I see with this, is it may allow a new upload, by an
> NMUer, to change the Maintainer field, thereby making the bugs be
> closed, instead of fixed.

Err, an NMUer can already fake things so that bugs are closed instead
of tagged as fixed; nothing has really changed in that respect.
 
> Also, how would the Maintainers file be populated?

Err, the same way as it is now.  This information is used only to
determine whether or not an Upload is an NMU or not, nothing more.  At
least, that's what I need and want it for; anything else is outside
the scope of my interest.

> Debbugs would need to be modified to parse these multiple
> maintainers.

I don't see why, but in any event, it's not relevant to me...

-- 
James



Acknowledgement sent to Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #19 received at 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com>
To: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
Cc: <101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org>, <ftpmaster@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 04:19:58 -0500 (CDT)
On 21 Jun 2001, James Troup wrote:

> That's a possibility; I don't particularly care how it's done, I just
> don't want it to be a central file maintained by the ftp team.  I
> didn't do multi-line maintainer field because I don't know what
> supports that and what will break.

Well, I would hope that all tools have a generic control-file syntax parser,
which means they should handle multi-line fields generically.  However, I do
understand that some tools take shortcuts(Wichert admitted that his
debcontrol.vim syntax file has this problem).

> Several?  I see 6.  Out of 843.  If this is really a problem, it can
> be fixed (by implementing proper RFC822 address parsing in katie; it's
> on the TODO list anyway).

Perl has a rfc822 parser, I would bet that python does as well.

>
> > So, if done this way, then no modification to dpkg-dev is needed.
>
> But you risk breaking any number of tools which don't expect the
> Maintainer field to be multi-line.  Is that really a gain versus a 2
> character change to dpkg-source ?

Then the question becomes, what parses .dsc, and, if the set of programs that
do, how many use the Maintainer field?

> Err, an NMUer can already fake things so that bugs are closed instead
> of tagged as fixed; nothing has really changed in that respect.

True.

> Err, the same way as it is now.  This information is used only to
> determine whether or not an Upload is an NMU or not, nothing more.  At
> least, that's what I need and want it for; anything else is outside
> the scope of my interest.

Well, the real question becomes, how is the current Maintainers file
populated?  Is it with the data from the Maintainer field in the .dsc?  If so,
then, when multiple are listed, which one gets put into the Maintainers file?

If that is too hairy to deal with, then perhaps a separate field in
debian/control(which is moved to .dsc), is required for this.  Your patch to
the bug replaced Maintainer with Maintainers, when it really shoudl be an
addition.

If it is going to be done with a new field, I would prefer it to be
multi-line, and called Maintainers.  However, calling it such may lead to
confusion.





Acknowledgement sent to James Troup <james@nocrew.org>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
To: Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com>
Cc: <101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org>, <ftpmaster@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: 21 Jun 2001 21:23:49 +0100
Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com> writes:

> Your patch to the bug replaced Maintainer with Maintainers, [...]

No, that's totally wrong.  My patch _added_ 'Maintainers' as an
allowed field _in addition to_ 'Maintainer'.  e.g. from my test
package:

| 21:18:35@dt-jtlaptop| ~/scratch $cat ed-0.2/debian/control 
| Source: ed
| Section: editors
| Priority: important
| Maintainer: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
| Maintainers: Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>, Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>
| Standards-Version: 3.1.1.1
| 
| Package: ed
| [...]

Nothing changes with respect to the 'Maintainer' field.  If it makes
it clearer, change 'Maintainers' to 'Uploaders' or 'Allowed-Uploaders'
or whatever.  Again, my emphasis here was on a working, minimal,
non-intrusive, isolated change.

-- 
James



Acknowledgement sent to Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com>
To: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
Cc: <101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org>, <ftpmaster@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 04:47:26 -0500 (CDT)
On 21 Jun 2001, James Troup wrote:

> Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com> writes:
>
> > Your patch to the bug replaced Maintainer with Maintainers, [...]
>
> No, that's totally wrong.  My patch _added_ 'Maintainers' as an
> allowed field _in addition to_ 'Maintainer'.  e.g. from my test
> package:

-            elsif (m/^(Standards-Version|Origin|Maintainer)$/) { $f{$_}= $v; }
+            elsif (m/^(Standards-Version|Origin|Maintainers?)$/) { $f{$_}= $v; }

I missed the ?.






Acknowledgement sent to Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #28 received at 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com>
To: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
Cc: <101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org>, <ftpmaster@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 04:53:58 -0500 (CDT)
On 21 Jun 2001, James Troup wrote:

> Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com> writes:
>
> > Your patch to the bug replaced Maintainer with Maintainers, [...]
>
> No, that's totally wrong.  My patch _added_ 'Maintainers' as an
> allowed field _in addition to_ 'Maintainer'.  e.g. from my test
> package:
>
> | 21:18:35@dt-jtlaptop| ~/scratch $cat ed-0.2/debian/control
> | Source: ed
> | Section: editors
> | Priority: important
> | Maintainer: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
> | Maintainers: Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>, Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>
> | Standards-Version: 3.1.1.1
> |
> | Package: ed
> | [...]

I'll add your patch to the next dpkg upload(1.9.13), if any brokeness bugs
come in.  So far, none have come in(101813 is a valid bug in the fetchmail
source).





Acknowledgement sent to James Troup <james@nocrew.org>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #31 received at 101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
To: Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com>
Cc: <101815-quiet@bugs.debian.org>, <ftpmaster@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#101815: dpkg-dev: multiple-maintainer support
Date: 21 Jun 2001 21:56:19 +0100
Adam Heath <doogie@brainfood.com> writes:

> On 21 Jun 2001, James Troup wrote:
> 
> > Adam Heath <adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com> writes:
> >
> > > Your patch to the bug replaced Maintainer with Maintainers, [...]
> >
> > No, that's totally wrong.  My patch _added_ 'Maintainers' as an
> > allowed field _in addition to_ 'Maintainer'.  e.g. from my test
> > package:
> >
> > | 21:18:35@dt-jtlaptop| ~/scratch $cat ed-0.2/debian/control
> > | Source: ed
> > | Section: editors
> > | Priority: important
> > | Maintainer: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
> > | Maintainers: Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>, Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>
> > | Standards-Version: 3.1.1.1
> > |
> > | Package: ed
> > | [...]
> 
> I'll add your patch to the next dpkg upload(1.9.13), if any brokeness bugs
> come in.  So far, none have come in(101813 is a valid bug in the fetchmail
> source).

Err... A random test of dpkg-dev 1.9.12 shows that out of 9 of my
packages, 4 (ed, mawk, gdbm, xloadimage) fail to extract in some way
or other.  IMNSHO that's dpkg-dev being broken, not the packages it
fails to extract (NB: tar has no problem with any of the
.orig.tar.gz's).

-- 
James



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>:
Bug#101815; Package dpkg-dev. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to James Troup <james@nocrew.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #36 received at 101815@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
To: 101815@bugs.debian.org
Subject: pointless bloat
Date: 25 Jun 2001 00:07:58 +0100
|    * Add support for an Uploaders field, which is read from the first
|      paragraph of debian/control, and propagated to the .dsc.  This lists
|      the people allowed to upload a package.  If it is not set, then the
|      value of the Maintainer is placed into this field of the .dsc.  This
|      bumps the .dsc format to 1.1.  Closes: #101815.

Err, why?  That just adds pointless bloat to each and every .dsc when
in reality an incredibly tiny percentage of source packages in the
archive actually need this field.  Please just fix it like I did.  As
I said I don't care what you call the field, but it only needs to be
there if specifically added by a human.

-- 
James



Tags added: fixed Request was from Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Bug closed, send any further explanations to James Troup <james@nocrew.org> Request was from Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> to control@bugs.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 13:15:25 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.