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

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control



Quoting Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org):
>         Actually, policy is usually the last thing that you want to
>  do, in the general case.  Policy is usually stable (well, not quite as
>  stable as it has been this year, but work seems to be easing up a
>  trifle, so expect a policy release in a couple of weeks).
> 
>         But the idea is that policy documents mature practice, and only
>  when it is deemed really required.  Since so few packages do the
>  Homepage thing, I would much rather see a working design, supported by
>  apt and p.d.o, make any changes or tweaks as are needed; and _then_ we
>  look at policy.  If very few packages are using it still, you'll have
>  to start with a MAY or suggests, anyway.


That was my initial idea: have the policy document after the practice
became common practice as I remember that you (Manoj, but also often
aj) often remind that the Policy is more about documenting common
practice and turning it into 'rules' thanestablishing rules before
they're really used.

However, re-reading the part that describes debian/control fields in
the policy, I noticed that they're describe in the *policy* and not in
the DevRef.

So, my thought when I proposed to begin with the policy was to have it
describe that field without making it mandatory (MAY requirement, not
MUST requirement) so that lintian/linda can point developers to it
when issuing a warning for the missing field.

So I roughly propose to:

- Add an item to "5.3 Binary package control files -- DEBIAN/control":
  - Homepage
  (note the missing "mandatory")

- Add a level 3 section to  5.6 List of fields:
  5.6.x Homepage
The upstream project home page URL. It should preferably
contain and http(s) URL linking to a page describing the upstream
project with access to the project's resources. This is an optional
field


Would this better field for an early integration in the policy or do
you still recommend that it comes after implementation in aptish tools
and adoption by "enough" packages (probably following integration in lintian/linda)?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: