Re: Homepage in debian/control (was: RFS: queuegraph (take two))
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:31, Sam Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:23:20 +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> > On 31/08/06, martin f krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> also sprach Michal Čihař <email@example.com> [2006.08.31.1639 +0200]:
> >> > Please no, as tools will start to use X-Homepage, you will have to
> >> > keep compatibility for long time. And if tools won't use it, it
> >> > makes no use to include it in debian/control. I always wondered
> >> > why there is no proper support for Homepage:...
> >> Those are the laws of adoption, yes. I don't think compatibility is
> >> so hard to achieve here, but you are right: we must not act
> >> prematurely.
> >> Anyway, the reason why there's no proper support is, of course,
> >> because noone has provided patches yet...
> > And pathces are not there because there is a herd of people who oppose
> > violently to adding a Homepage: field to the control file. The main
> > arguments (which are stupid IMHO) are that:
> > [...]
> A more practical reason not to do it is that the homepage may move,
> leaving us publishing outdated information for the rest of the stable
Same holds true for the URLs stored in the copyright file (downloaded
from...), in the watch file, and in the rules file (if you have the optional
get-orig-source target). Thus these basically sit exactly on the same line.
OTOH having to remember so many files to update/fix site locations is no fun
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB