Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > On Sat, Aug 26 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Well, it doesn't, exactly... it says that it can be a web forum or >> bugtracker, but doesn't say anything about being a URL. Hm. >> >> Something about this sits wrong with me, in that I feel like we should >> capture the upstream contact information directly rather than relying >> on a URL remaining present on the web. But I'm not sure it's that big >> of a deal one way or the other, so I'm still okay with the wording you >> proposed originally (and still second it). > The case I had in mind was where the only information available was a > URI, with no maintainer name or e-mail address. In that case, Homepage: > would duplicate that information, and that's what we're trying to avoid > with this bug. > On reflection I realise that such a case is rather unlikely. But I > would still like to cover it with this change. Yeah, makes sense. Works for me! We can always revisit later if we run into some issue with it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>