While I agree that improving Maintainer and Uploaders fields is worthwhile, I don't think this is the right approach.
> We should eventually change the specification to say that Maintainer > fields have the same syntax as Uploaders. There isn't a well defined syntax for Uploaders either, see #509935 and linked bugs. > In the meantime, we should explicitly state that a Maintainer field > MUST NOT contain commas. I would say we have a rough consensus to the contrary in #401452: the Maintainer field can indeed contain commas as part of the maintainer's name and that's not an issue as it is only permitted to contain one value. -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
