Re: Bug#220779: ITP: zope-epoz -- Cross-browser-wysiwyg-editor for Zope
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:31:04PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Chris Waters dijo [Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:46:22PM -0800]:
>> But I still think that the vast majority of us would
>> disagree with a claim that a package homepage URL is merely
>> "administrivia" in any case.
>> Now, I suppose it could be argued that if a home page for a package
>> doesn't contain any useful information about that package (unlikely
>> but possible), then the URL *would* qualify as "adminstrivia", but I
>> think you'd have to show that the home page is useless before making
>> such a claim, and such arguments would have to be done on a
>> package-by-package basis.
> Unlikely but possible? That's how most of my package's homepages are
> like - An entry in CPAN, no more and no less. It is of absolutely no
> use for the casual user who wants to install the package. It is only
> useful when you want to download the sources and install it by
> yourself, maybe after some modifications - and that renders the
> package useless.
Ack, you made your case. The URL would be "administrivia" for these
To balance this: This is not the case for any of "mine", every one of
them offers additional info on the website, be it screenshots,
mailinglists, extensive documentation or upstream's bugtracking
Can we agree on the "decide on package-by-package basis"?
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"