On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 17:47:34, Gordian Edenhofer wrote: > [...] > Since FS#32481 has been fixed, does this patch will be accepted as is > or are there major objections? > [...]
I like the idea but I do not like the implementation. The package base details and the package details pages are way too cluttered already. I just submitted two preparatory patches to clean up at least parts of the mess. Could you try to implement your feature on top of the pu branch? I didn't think of all the details but you probably don't even need to touch any templates. Amending the new html_action_link() and html_action_form() functions might be enough. Regards, Lukas
