Re: RFD: new optional field for 'control'
Bruce Perens writes:
Bruce> From: email@example.com (Ian Jackson)
>> If we were going to do this a separate admin info file (like
>> `conffiles'), it would be more appropriate...
Bruce> OK. I think the easiest way to deal with this is to distribute a
Bruce> foo-2.5-0.html file with the package of the same name, and let the
Bruce> script pick up that it is there.
This leads to too much file clutter. Why not a debian.html or
debian.control-html or whatever within the .deb package?
>> Remember, we're trying to concentrate on providing a good operating
>> system, not an impressive-looking WWW site.
Bruce> Here's where I have to differ: Marketing is very important. What
Bruce> good is Debian if nobody uses it? A good looking package list on the
Bruce> WWW site helps the prospective users decide if Debian has what they
Bruce> want, and thus helps the them decide to put Debian on their systems.
You're both right. But featurism is be a bigger a problem, IMHO, so I'd
follow Ian here. Debian is good because it's well made, not because it's well
sold. Don't copy from Micro$oft ;-).
How about a perl script that builds the html pages out of what can be found
already in the debian.control file?