On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 12:16 -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote: > > > Please can this 'trend' be stopped here and now? > > > > The Packages.gz file is already enormous (especially for Emdebian > > purposes or other low resource units) and adding yet more fields to > > debian/control is really not that friendly. > > I appreciate the strive to make Debian work on small machines, but it > is reasonable to put their constraints on the whole project? IMHO the Packages.gz file is already too large for my standard Debian machines! Unless you have a v.recent v.fast machine, reading the dpkg available file and apt package lists can take significant amounts of time. Even on this amd64 box, it is a noticeable delay. Why make that worse? Others have already indicated that this particular addition might not be the most useful addition to debian/control - I'd say leave it at that. > > Please use debtags wherever possible for all such metadata - maybe even > > migrate some existing data in debian/control to debtags. > > If I understand correctly, debtags are faceted and not free-form, so > you won't be able to enter URLs into it. That's probably for the best, IMHO. > Other data, like the type of > bug tracker, as Russ suggested, could be put in debtags, and it felts > like the correct place for doing it. Agreed. > > This specific request, IMHO, is probably best done via links on the > > Homepage URL anyway. > > Can you explain how you'd do this? ? Ask upstream ? I thought that would be the simplest solution. I fail to see any benefit in linking Debian to the upstream BTS - automated or otherwise and your replies to the other respondents has failed to persuade me that there is any merit in this idea at all. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part