Josip Rodin wrote: > The dpkg developers haven't implemented any other control field to put this > in, so the long Description: is the decent workaround. I disagree: The Description field is not intended to be a random dumping-ground for any information that cannot fit into some other field. > And it's not like new metadata fields are a taboo topic, Origin and Bugs > have been added relatively recently. Something like Upstream-URI could be > added just as well. Indeed. Like I said, I'd support any such amendment, and patching dpkg for a new field is easy. > > and because this conflicts with established practice and policy, > > so now we have a sub-optimal way (what policy says to do), and a > > different, conflicting, and also sub-optimal thing (what developers > > reference says to do), and you have to look in two places to find > > anything. > > I really don't see what you're talking about. This is putting the _same_ > information (the same upstream URL) in two _entirely_ non-conflicting places > (the Description: control field and the copyright file). I meant conflicting for mind-share. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpTZjY2_Hpyx.pgp
Description: PGP signature