Thanks for your explanation, that clarifies things for me. On 06.09.2016 15:33, Boris Pek wrote: > Hi, > >> I (co-maintainer of Wine) just saw on >> https://wiki.winehq.org/Third_Party_Applications >> that q4wine is listed as an obsolete application. [...] > Now main developer came back to active development of q4wine project and > almost all is fine. > >> Would it be correct to change this classification on winehq.org? > > Yes, sure.
Will do so. > Personally I do not see the necessity to change Homepage link in this package. > Other opinions are welcome. I think an archive.org address gives the impression of an abandoned project. Furthermore, if I check an upstream URL that's often because I'm looking for solutions to current problems, while general documentation is normally found sufficiently in /usr/share/doc. Of course even with an outdated archive.org URL I may easily switch to a newer version - it's just not obvious that newer versions exists as long as I only look at the package's homepage field. Maybe use the real homepage and mention archive.org in a README.Debian. Or update the archive.org address (preferably with every release) and eventually mention the real homepage in a README.Debian. Note: Unfortunately the Homepage field is defined [1] to contain only one URL, nothing else. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Homepage Greets jre
