[ Switching from d-p@l.d.o to the bug so that the thread is tracked. ] On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:23:19 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 14:52:22 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > > What is the rationale for explicitly disallowing line-end comments > > > in any but that one file? > > > > This just predates other files in source packages using deb822 syntax. > > The reason is that the control file in a binary package does not > > support comments for example.
> Should the wording at least be changed so that it only prohibits > line-end comments in binary package control file? I think an explicit list of files supporting comments instead of one of those not supporting them would be better. > I ask this because I'm pretty sure that people who hand-wave a > specification as “same syntax as ‘debian/control’ file” intend for it to > have all the allowed syntax of that file, including comments. Perhaps, but in the end it does not matter, if the file has not been explicitly specified as supporting them and the current code handling those other files cannot handle comments anyway. There are more files with deb822 style syntax that are neither in source nor binary packages, several of which I'm doubtful might support comments(?): * (In)Release, Packages, Sources, Translation files in repositories. * .dsc files * .changes files. * dpkg origins (or vendor file), specified as supporting comments. * dpkg status file (not supported). * … So, as stated I'd list them explicitly, or restrict to only files inside a source package perhaps. I'll be adding the origins file to the new deb822(5) man page describing the format in dpkg's git master, though. Thanks, Guillem
