David Prévot wrote: > Since there seems to have issues with html2txt, and the policy advises > the use of lynx [0] No, policy gives an *example*, which happens to use lynx. > what about reverting your almost ten years old > change (#93747) and get back to depend on lynx ? If anything, I would be inclined to make it use w3m, which is now priority standard. But, consider: html changelogs are vanishingly rare (ie, 0.3% of the packages I have installed have one). html changelogs tend to have broken links (in 50% of the ones I surveyed). This is because /usr/share/doc/foo/changelog.html.gz tends to be copied to that policy-mandated location, while the files it links to are in /usr/share/doc/foo/html or /usr/share/doc/foo-doc/. As a corralary of the above, policy's handling of html changelogs basically requires that the changelog information be duplicated three times! Once uncompressed next to the other files that link to it; once as compressed html, which actually wastes space since it can't just symlink to the other location, and once as badly formatted plain text. My feeling is that the mention of html changelogs in policy is ill-advised, over-specifying what should be done in a minor edge case in a way that tends to result in bad solutions. IIRC, it seemed to make sense at the time that increasingly many packages would use html for their changelogs, but that does not seem to have happened. It would probably be better if policy just advised putting a pointer to the real upstream changelog in changelog.gz, and suggested that if the real upstream changelog were easily convertable to text, changelog.gz be built from it. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature