On Thu, March 9, 2006 2:08 pm, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:50:39 -0600, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> said: > > >>> repository: [svn] https://svn.versiondude.net/randys/CPAN-Metadata > >> > >> I think it would be good to keep the field as a URL. Why does it > >> have to > >> actually give the direct access point. Why could it not be a link to a > >> page that gives details about the repository. > > > Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. For a mailing list, for example, > > you don't want to give a mailto: URL or something, you want to point > > to an info page. Probably the same thing is true with repositories. > > In my experience you can go in circles when you search for the > repository address from a homepage. People tend to forget to publish > it in a prominent place. There's simply no tie to a certain place: > download? contact? mailing list? FAQ? links? documentation? Ahh, of > course, it is in the Wiki:)
But these are links to specific info pages > Folks at the German Perl Workshop seem to have the same experience. It > would really help to have a defined field for the repository address. Yes, but they do not have to be links to the repository itself. There is no format that could easily cover every repository out there, so much better tolink to an info page. And for mailinglist, do you put mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Better to link to a page which could also have archives on them. Look at the example in the docs resources: license: http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ homepage: http://sourceforge.net/projects/module-build bugtracker: http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bugs.html?Dist=Module-Build MailingList: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/module-build-general to which you could add repository: http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=45731 Graham.
