Re: Homepage field
On 8/20/07, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:49:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:17:03AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Ok, just pushed the Homepage field support into dpkg git. Chose Homepage
> > > as that was what was requested on 142324 and what has mostly been used
> > > on the pseudo-header in the Description field.
>
> > Can you please give us some details? Some questions follow ...
>
> > - if I got this correctly it means that I can start adding 'Homepage'
> > fields (no heading 'X', no fake fields in description) to my
> > debian/controls, right?
>
> Yes, you'll get several warnings from different dpkg-* programs and the
> field will be ignored until you start using the new dpkg, though.
>
> > - should the field be put in the source stanza of debian/control or in
> > the various binary stanzas?
>
> Yes, only in the source stanza (the ones in the binary stanzas will be
> ignored and warned), and it will propagate to the source and all the
> binary packages.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to have different Homepage fields on the
> binary stanzas, but if someone can think of a case it might be useful
> I could change it to override the source stanza field.
>
> > - probably not dpkg's business, but will the field flow to the Packages
> > files of the archive? What about the Sources?
>
> Yes, all fields that get into the binary packages should end up in the
> meta indices.
>
> regards,
> guillem
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
I was thinking about this field, and "Homepage" sounds a bit ambiguous
in my ear. I would suggest changing it to "Upstream" instead. This
because not all "upstreams" has a "homepage" per definition of
"homepage" in modern sense.
--
/Carl Fürstenberg <azatoth@gmail.com>
Reply to: