[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 Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Colin Watson wrote:

> Andreas, from where I'm sitting, "an extra control field which would
> cause a lintian warning if empty to enforce maintainers to do it" is the
> bureaucratic position, not Adam's.
You catched me.  But I'm German.  I'm allowed to be bureaucratic. ;-)

> Using the description is great. It lets the maintainer mention multiple
> URLs if they're appropriate, or none if they aren't (e.g. there's no
> upstream maintainer); it lets the maintainer add additional wording
> describing what the URL is about in an informal style. I don't see the
> need to introduce additional control fields which, by their very nature,
> are often inappropriate or inadequate.
The problem is that only a minority of maintainers seem to know about this
nice feature.  In my opinion the suggested method is a lintian warnig the
most efficient method to inform maintainers about this feature because
everybody will notice it once he would build a package.  A warning is
no hammer in my opinion.

> Are you sure you aren't trying to over-engineer things?
I'm really unsure.  It's my habit to discuss problems I'm unsure about ;-).
I see a clear advantage for the purpose of package web-pages and perhaps
other things.  In my opinion a homepage URL is *not* a description.
The homepage *contains* a description - in most cases more detailed
and more up to date.  This is exactly what I want to know.

Kind regards


RC-Bug of the week: 118793

Reply to: