On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:47:08AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > It was always my intent that this field would in be a subset of > RFC822/5322 sender/recipient field formt. > > We should never have diverged from 822 here. So that we ever > permitted commas in the name part was an egregious mistake. > > IMO the only question for this bug is is precisely what subsets of 822 > format is allowed. The work to be done here is: > > * Review 5322 and decide which subset to allow. Probably, just > unquoted Name <Email> and one-quoted-bloc "Name" <Email>. > > * Write this down in policy, making many programs insta-nonomcpliant. > > * Go around fixing all the software. > > I wanted to reply specifically to this one comment: > > > There is no reason to split Maintainer fields, because they should be > > nothing to split. > > This is a very bad argument. > > We should not syntactically prevent a future evolution of our policy > to permit co-maintainership, or normal use of this same field by > downstreams with a different policy. > > Furthermore, we have the Uploaders field now. Clearly Maintainer and > Uploaders ought to be in the same syntax.
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. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
