Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #821363,
regarding debian-policy: Allow line-end comments in all Debian packaging
control files
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
821363: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=821363
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Control: tags -1 patch
The specification of Debian control files in Policy §5.1 says:
Lines starting with # without any preceding whitespace are
comments lines that are only permitted in source package control
files (debian/control). These comment lines are ignored, even
between two continuation lines. They do not end logical lines.
What is the rationale for explicitly disallowing line-end comments in
any but that one file?
The ‘debian/copyright’ file is an example of a file of the described
syntax, that benefits from line-end comments (e.g. for editor hints,
or for temporarily disabling some lines, or for explaining an unusual
value for a field).
There are likely other Debian packaging files of the same syntax where
line-end comments are useful.
If there is no good rationale to categorically deny all line end
comments in other files with that syntax, I suggest the attached
patches.
--
\ “What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy |
`\ river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.” —Jack |
_o__) Handey |
Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
From 04bffa59187df69969d9736dc865514fcd30b840 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:31:14 +1000
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Clarify which characters constitute syntax of control
files.
---
policy.sgml | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 404dc737..236bf743 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2541,13 +2541,16 @@ endif
</p>
<p>
- Each paragraph consists of a series of data fields. Each field
- consists of the field name followed by a colon and then the
- data/value associated with that field. The field name is
- composed of US-ASCII characters excluding control characters,
- space, and colon (i.e., characters in the ranges 33-57 and
- 59-126, inclusive). Field names must not begin with the comment
- character, <tt>#</tt>, nor with the hyphen character, <tt>-</tt>.
+ Each paragraph consists of a series of data fields. Each
+ field consists of the field name followed by a colon and
+ then the data/value associated with that field. The field
+ name is composed of US-ASCII characters excluding control
+ characters, space, and colon (i.e., characters in the ranges
+ U+0021 “<tt>!</tt>” through U+0039 “<tt>9</tt>”, and U+003B
+ “<tt>;</tt>” through U+007E “<tt>~</tt>”, inclusive). Field
+ names must not begin with the comment character (U+0023
+ “<tt>#</tt>”), nor with the hyphen character (U+002D
+ “<tt>-</tt>”).
</p>
<p>
@@ -2624,17 +2627,20 @@ Package: libc6
</p>
<p>
- Paragraph separators (empty lines) and lines consisting only of
- spaces and tabs are not allowed within field values or between
- fields. Empty lines in field values are usually escaped by
- representing them by a space followed by a dot.
+ Paragraph separators (empty lines), and lines consisting
+ only of U+0020 SPACE and U+0009 TAB, are not allowed within
+ field values or between fields. Empty lines in field values
+ are usually escaped by representing them by a U+0020 SPACE
+ followed by a U+002E “<tt>.</tt>”.
</p>
<p>
- Lines starting with # without any preceding whitespace are comments
- lines that are only permitted in source package control files
- (<file>debian/control</file>). These comment lines are ignored, even
- between two continuation lines. They do not end logical lines.
+ Lines starting with U+0023 “<tt>#</tt>”, without any
+ preceding whitespace, are comment lines that are only
+ permitted in source package control files
+ (<file>debian/control</file>). These comment lines are
+ ignored, even between two continuation lines. They do not
+ end logical lines.
</p>
<p>
--
2.8.0.rc3
From 3a00ca0e08f19926a6e64e0e47a8d823eda9846f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:46:44 +1000
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Remove restriction of which control files may contain
comments.
---
policy.sgml | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 236bf743..9aca360c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2636,9 +2636,7 @@ Package: libc6
<p>
Lines starting with U+0023 “<tt>#</tt>”, without any
- preceding whitespace, are comment lines that are only
- permitted in source package control files
- (<file>debian/control</file>). These comment lines are
+ preceding whitespace, are comment lines. These comment lines are
ignored, even between two continuation lines. They do not
end logical lines.
</p>
--
2.8.0.rc3
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix
Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.
The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:
- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
important enough to keep an open bug around;
- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion. A fresh
discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
old bug are unlikely to help very much; or
- issue is not appropriate for Policy.
If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug. However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.
A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
