On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:20:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't object to QA pulling the current Homepage bits from the package
> description, but it would be nice if it could add support for Homepage as
> a control field at the same time. I'm happy to make a
This is reasonable and I don't object that.
> I suppose one open question is whether to use Homepage or use Url, as some
> packages do already have Url headers and none are currently using
> Homepage. RPM uses URL.
I prefer Homepage. URL is not a meaningful name in the present context,
it's just a way to addressing stuff, it doesn't say what is being
addressed, while "Homepage" does.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature