Re: Differences between fields in debian/control and upstream-metadata
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Am 2014-09-03 05:11, schrieb David Prévot:
> Hi,
>
> Le 02/09/2014 17:04, Simon Kainz a écrit :
>> mira upstream-metadata:
>> http://www.chevreux.org/projects_mira.html control-file:
>> http://chevreux.org/projects_mira.html diff size: 34 lines
>
> Please note that those differences are just of the self-link kind,
> as translated by lynx: neither wget nor w3m spot any difference
> here.
>
> - 1. http://chevreux.org/index0.html […] + 1.
> http://www.chevreux.org/index0.html
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
>
Hello,
yes, false positive, thank you. It is probably the wrong way to
compare websites the way I do. But still, there are some which are
definitly not the same webiste. So i guess this should be done by
hand, which is currently quite possible, given that I found currently
only 27 possible issues.
OTOH, maybe i got this completely wrong, and both links may eventually
point to different urls.
Policy [0] says, the Homepage: field is "
The URL of the web site for this package, preferably (when applicable)
the site from which the original source can be obtained and any
additional upstream documentation or information may be found. The
content of this field is a simple URL without any surrounding
characters such as <>. "
So, to my understanding, this should then point to the same URL as the
entry in upstream-metadata, if there is a website for the original
upstream work availabe.
But, maybe i got this completely wrong....
Bye,
Simon
[0]
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Homepage
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=D/7u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: