Hi!
On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 21:49:12 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 20:39 +00:00:
> > On Sat 14 Mar 2020 at 08:09PM +00, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:14 +00:00:
> > >> - ::
> > >> -
> > >> - /closes:\s*(?:bug)?\#?\s?\d+(?:,\s*(?:bug)?\#?\s?\d+)*/i
> > >> -
> > >> + All of the bug numbers listed must be given on the same physical line
> > >> + as the word ``closes:``.
> > >
> > > Is this newly-added sentence correct?
> > >
> > > Whether it correctly states the semantics of the regexp depends on
> > > whether the regexp is matched against the changelog entry as a single
> > > multiline string or line-by-line. In the former case, the list of bug
> > > numbers would be allowed to span multiple lines, but in the latter case
> > > it wouldn't.
> > >
> > > Currently, the patch assumes all bug numbers should be on the same line,
> > > but /usr/share/vim/vim81/syntax/debchangelog.vim allows bug numbers to
> > > span multiple lines. I'm guessing the syntax file is right and the patch
> > > should
> > > be changed?
> >
> > In PCREs \s matches the newline character so I believe your text is
> > incorrect.
>
> I agree that it is probably incorrect, but that doesn't follow from the
> semantics of /\s/. Even if /\s/ matched any single byte/character, the
> semantics would still depend on what haystack the regexp is matched
> against: the entire changelog entry, or one line thereof at a time.
It is definitely incorrect. The canonical implementation is currently
in libdpkg-perl's Dpkg::Changelog::Entry::Debian::find_closes(), where
the entire changelog entry is passed as a single string, so something
like this is perfectly fine:
Closes:
#12345,
#67890,
#55555
AFAIK, DAK only operates based on the Closes field in the .changes
file. I'll clarify the regex also in the deb-changelog(5) man page.
Thanks,
Guillem
