[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposing a new source control header to link to upstream BTSs

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

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.


> >  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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: