On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 17:03:44 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> If I see this correctly, it's all because the code reads only the first
> line of the Binary field, without considering it may be a multiline
> field (and tbh I didn't even realized it could be…)
I must admit I hadn't realised there was any middle ground in changes
files between "multi-line is mandatory" (like Files) and "multi-line
is forbidden".
I'll try to put together some sort of parsing fix in shell for buster,
but I think this is a sign that mergechanges being a shell script
isn't actually very sustainable, and it should be in a language with
a more formal parser, probably Perl (using Dpkg::Control) or Python
(using debian.deb822).
For now, is it OK to make mergechanges use a perl one-liner involving
Dpkg::Control to do the heavy lifting? It seems that it already requires
perl, and libdpkg-perl is indirectly a hard dependency for devscripts.
For the future, do the devscripts maintainers have a preference for the
implementation language of a post-buster rewrite of mergechanges in a
language with real parsers?
smcv
