control: tag -1 +patch On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or > bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL. Hm. > > Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should > capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying on a > URL remaining present on the web. But I'm not sure it's that big of a > deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you proposed > originally (and still second it). The case I had in mind was where the only information available was a URI, with no maintainer name or e-mail address. In that case, Homepage: would duplicate that information, and that's what we're trying to avoid with this bug. On reflection I realise that such a case is rather unlikely. But I would still like to cover it with this change. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature