[ Replying to the bug report, for tracking purposes, as it seems I accidentally sent the previous two mails only to the debian-policy mailing list. ]
Hi! On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 13:00:18 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sat, 2025-06-21 at 16:56:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 19:12:54 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Do you have a list of all tools and services that assume that Maintainer > > > is a > > > single email address ? Before that, I consider any changes to be > > > dangerous. > > > > Yes, changing this before every major parser has been updated, or at > > least dpkg has been warning or erroring out on expected malformed > > inputs seems like a recipe for disaster. > > > > I had started looking at this some months ago due to #1089648, and > > my last modifications from last month were something like: > > > > > > https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/dpkg/dpkg.git/commit/?h=next/normalize-maint&id=16cbd3183d6f3598f774a25b9c275faed4324732 > > > I cannot recall now whether I did throw the archive Sources against it > > though. And as mentioned on the commit message I'll probably refactor > > that into its own class, but that would be in theory the way I see going > > forward if that does not cause fallout (or at least not unexpected one). > > > > If there's work done to change the current semantics, then I'd be open > > in the future to changing what dpkg might accept (after a planned > > transition, etc). > > I did finish that, run it through the archive, which matched what > Stuart had already filed, and some more things, which are now either > filed as serious or have already been fixed. (I think there's only a > couple of packages with bogus values remaining). > > This parsing and validation is now performed by the various dpkg-dev > tools at build time only, starting with dpkg 1.23.4 (in the > Dpkg::Email::Address and Dpkg::Email::AddressList, for now, private > Perl modules). Thanks, Guillem
