[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#129848: www.debian.org: "more info" URL in package descriptions

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Joey Hess wrote:

> Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >   Hmm, it occurs to me that having a uniform specified way to retrieve
> > the upstream URL might have some other uses as well.  For instance, apt
> > frontends could provide a "view upstream website" command..
> I think the closest we have to that right now is uscan files, which are
> very useful in their own right. If you looked at uscan back when it just
> supported ftp sites and were, like me, unimpressed, it's worth a second
> look now that it supports proper regexps and web sites too. I spent one
> afternoon adding uscan files for all my packages, and now a cron job
> checks for new versions each night, which is very handy.
Fine.  Perhaps this would even require two additional control fields:

     HomepageURL: <URL of the main page of the project if existing>
     UpstreamURL: <regexp URL of the upstream source for use in uscan>

The thing which really annoys me in this thread is that we spend time in
discussion, what the right procedure would be to implement it (Policy,
Developers-Reference, www.debian.org in different order/priority, what

I would love if we would just decide:

   1. Do we need and support additional control fields.
   2. Do we need just one single URL or even the two mentioned above.
   3. In this case could we leave out this information in the
      copyright file (because the information is just available
      and does not need to be duplicated).

Currently such an additional field in debian/control is not moved into
the final binary package (as I tried) and I personally have no idea
how to do that so please do not bother me again with: Would you do that
please.  I'm just asking for opinions and if there would be a broad
consensus and it should be a real problem to implement it (but I doubt
that) I would start looking into dpkg code.

Kind regards


My fixed RC-bug of the week: 118793

Reply to: