Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers--
> > they're free to implement this feature if they want. It's not a
> > matter for policy.
> I agree it is not a matter for policy. However [...]
> it is common to do dch -i, do some minor
> clean up, wait a month, make a change and upload the package without
> remembering to update the changelog date.
Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should
be chastised. But I agree, it does happen, and there may even be cases
where it's justified (i.e. do some work, wait a month, update
standards-version, then upload). So then, the proper people to talk
to are the maintainers of the upload processing software, katie, or
whatever. But frankly, I'm still not convinced that the moment of
upload is a datum of particular interest to most people. If you just
want to know if the package is "active", the changelog is the best
place to look.
Bottom line: the policy list is the wrong place for this discussion.
> > I do think that people should be encouraged to include home page links
> > in package descriptions, but this is a matter for the developers
> > reference, not policy. And you can always file wishlist bugs if you
> > see packages that don't have a home page link when you think they
> > should.
> I complety agree with that, and I think following the developer
> reference recommendation (DevRef 6.2.4. Upstream home page) make
> easy to parse the description for the upstream URL, so computers
> can find it easily, should they need to:
Indeed, I thought it might have been added to Dev-Ref already, but was
too lazy to check. :)
Bottom line: this _could_ be a matter for policy, but I don't think it
should be; I think the entry in Dev-Ref is quite sufficient.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: