Re: Homepage-field in description
Adam Borowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:11:32AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> I don't think any part of packages (description or separate field) are
>> the correct place for the Homepage field.
> Yes, that's because it's an unneeded duplication of what's already
> present in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright. The description is meant to
> convey information about where you can find useful things about the
> package, not about where you can download a new version.
As I understood it, the homepage information is something different than
a download place. The download location in the copyright file will
frequently be something like CPAN or CTAN, or some other ftp URL. The
homepage, on the other hand, will be http and is a place to provide more
information about the features of the package, screenshots,
documentation. Such information can be very useful when the description
sounds interesting, but is not sufficient to decide whether the software
will fullfill the particular needs of oneself.
> Of course, there may be cases where including the homepage may be
> beneficial, but most of the time, it's nothing but adding visual
> spam. If the homepage contains nothing but a blurb and download
> links, why would anyone need it in a description that is supposed to
> be _short_?
> Thus: shouting on people for "forgetting" the Homepage: field is
> counterproductive IMHO.
Of course, if the Homepage doesn't contain useful information. One
should never just shout, anyway. Rather check whether the homepage
provides useful information, and request its addition to the description
only if it does.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)