Andreas Tille wrote: > Great idea to fire up a browser from an apt frontend!!! It could be a nice thing, unless it is abused so that you _have_ to look at a bunch of web sites to pick what packages to install. Then it just becomes annoying, and crippling for those without internet access. Which is why I _don't_ want to see it in the package Descriptions. > But I would vote for an extra control field instead of "anywhere in the > Description", because this would enable us to add lintian checks once > this is included into policy (which hopefully will not be in a far > distance). The last time this came up (3 years ago?), it foundered in concerns about packages that have multiple upstream web sites and how to encode that in the URI: field, or something silly like that. And I think general apathy. Anyway, I'd second a reasonable policy proposal along the lines you're suggesting, or along the lines Manoj is suggesting. Anything is better than the status quo. Data-point: rpm packages have an URL: field in the spec file, that goes into the binary package, and holds a single URL. It seems to have worked ok for them. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpbcz2KoKvvJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature