Christian Perrier wrote:
> The latter should probably be quite conservative and only detect
> something like:
>
> "^ +[Hh]ome *[Pp]age:.*"
>
> in the package description.
/^\s+(web|home)\s*(site|page)\s*(:| at| is).*/i
seems to catch more (5087 hits) with few false positives.
Also, matching http
Quoting Faidon Liambotis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> > The latter should probably be quite conservative and only detect
> > something like:
> >
> > "^ +[Hh]ome *[Pp]age:.*"
> >
> > in the package description.
> /^ (web|home)( *)?(site|page) *(:| at| is).*/i
> seems to catch
Christian Perrier wrote:
> The latter should probably be quite conservative and only detect
> something like:
>
> "^ +[Hh]ome *[Pp]age:.*"
>
> in the package description.
/^ (web|home)( *)?(site|page) *(:| at| is).*/i
seems to catch more (1905 hits)
Regards,
Faidon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
checking for a proper Homepage psuedo-field to a check for the new
Homepage field, Russ said policy/devref should be updated first.
Personally, I think updating everything at the same time is the right
order. Anyways, I'll work on the patch so it is ready for when lintian
will accept it.
Also: I
Changes to lintian/linda are often mentioned in that discussion.
Roughly speaking, we need these tools to:
- no longer complain about "Homepage:" being an unknown field
- warn people currently using the trick of mentioning the Home Page in
the package's description and suggest them to move this t
> developers.
>
> However, policy is not exhaustive; and if policy says nothing on
> a topic, it means the topic is permitted, not prohibited; so the
> Homepage: field can be used by any package without the package falling
> foul of policy.
OK. I am not very strongly pushing the
e to change; and putting them in policy
means that even dpkg can't change the fields drastically fro under the
developers.
However, policy is not exhaustive; and if policy says nothing on
a topic, it means the topic is permitted, not prohibited; so the
Homepage: field can be used by a
Quoting Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Actually, policy is usually the last thing that you want to
> do, in the general case. Policy is usually stable (well, not quite as
> stable as it has been this year, but work seems to be easing up a
> trifle, so expect a policy release in
* Manoj Srivastava [Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:51:03 -0500]:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:08:12 +0300, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > At the very least, lintian should stop warning about Homepage:, right?
> > (Sorry if it already doesn't warn, I haven't had time to upgrade and
> > the machine
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:08:12 +0300, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> pe, 2007-09-21 kello 16:44 +0200, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti:
>> * Christian Perrier [Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200]:
>>
>> > Again, please comment,
>>
>> Personally, I think the change that should really go first is
pe, 2007-09-21 kello 16:44 +0200, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti:
> * Christian Perrier [Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200]:
>
> > Again, please comment,
>
> Personally, I think the change that should really go first is lintian/linda
> (emitting a warning for packages that put the homepage in the descript
ill give the
Homepage field the status quo needed to make it into devref and policy.
It will also make the size of the mass bug filings smaller, though I'm
not sure I like the idea of a MBF for this.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Deb
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Homepage thing, I would much rather see a working design, supported by
> apt and p.d.o, make any changes or tweaks as are needed; and _then_ we
p.d.o already supports it. "apt-cache show" obviouly displays the field.
The work left concerns higher-l
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Lars Wirzenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
>> added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
>> debian-devel-announce. Then next
Hi,
IANADD but...
Christian Perrier wrote:
> Then file a bug against *apt* packages and p.d.o to have them support
> displaying info from that field, before or after the d-d-a
> announcement.
you wrote what I thought when I read this proposal. After all it makes
sense to first add support for th
Quoting Lars Wirzenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
> added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
> debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to
> react and upload new packages, do a mass bug fil
>
> I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
> added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
> debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to
> react and upload new packages, do a mass bug filing.
Basically agreed. I created
http://w
I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to
react and upload new packages, do a mass bug filing.
Basically agreed. I created
http://wiki.debia
Luca Capello wrote:
> This is strange: the Homepage field is shown for some packages [1] and
> not for others [2], e.g. reported below:
> =
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show ikiwiki | grep "^Homepage"
> Homepage: http://ikiwiki.info/
>
> [EMAIL PROTECT
ing.
> 2. packages.debian.org/aptitude/other tools does not support this
> field. This means that moving Homepage from description to separate
> field for now means that no user will be able to see it.
This is strange: the Homepage field is shown for some packages [1] and
not for others
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:22:14AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Moreover I said that we might be able to parse debian/copyright for
> potential homepage strings.
Yep, I got that, sorry for not replying on it.
But this does not seem really feasible to me: in debian/copyright you
almost always hav
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Ah, ok, so probably the initial proposal was to file bugs against
packages using the pseudo Homepage field in the description, asking the
maintainers to convert it in the new one.
No I think you did understand the initial proposal right, but I
pseudo Homepage field in the description, asking the
maintainers to convert it in the new one. That's of course trivial (and
still welcome). I was thinking about how to bug packages to actually
include an Homepage field where is actually missing ...
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Compu
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
To me it doesn't seem easy to implement. The naive solution of bugging
all package without a Homepage field will not work because not all
package probably have an Homepage; I agree that the false negatives
would be only a few, but that&#x
inor" priority.
Agreed, I would welcome the mass bug filing and I would love to see my
packages bugged so that to have a roadmap of which need to be fixed.
Still, out of curiosity, how do you guys plan to do the mass bug filing?
To me it doesn't seem easy to implement. The naive solution of
cription to separate field for
now means that no user will be able to see it.
These are definitely not a showstoppers, but I think that they should
be resolved first before pushing Homepage field to be used.
--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to, 2007-09-20 kello 07:05 +0200, Christian Perrier kirjoitti:
> Of course, a mass bug-filing could also later happen but that would
> probably be a *huge* bug filing which should be avoided now. Entering
> a transition period where all communication media towards develpers
> are used to suggest sw
as of 1.14.6, supports
> the use of a "Homepage:" field in debian/control.
>
> As a consequence, it seems logical to promote the use of that field
> and recommend abandoning "Homepage" paragraphs in packages'
> description.
>
> As, in the Smith review pro
A recent discussion back in August, in -devel, showed that the current
common trick of using a "Homepage:" pseudo-field in binary packages'
descriptions is not really optimal.
In the discussion, it was pointed that dpkg, as of 1.14.6, supports
the use of a "Homepage:" fie
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 12:35:31 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Will it be possible to have more than one homepage listed, comma-separated?
Because dpkg does not have any direct use for it, it's not checking for
the validity of the values. So technically, yes, you could. The question
though is, do we w
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 13:03:32 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I don't think it makes sense to have different Homepage fields on the
> > binary stanzas, but if someone can think of a case it might be useful
> > I could change it to override the source stanza field.
> I have
Hello!
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:05:54 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> I was thinking about this field, and "Homepage" sounds a bit
> ambiguous in my ear.
Not in mine.
> I would suggest changing it to "Upstream" instead.
No, please. "Upstream" could be more than "Homepage",
e.g. "repository", "m
Guillem Jover wrote:
> I don't think it makes sense to have different Homepage fields on the
> binary stanzas, but if someone can think of a case it might be useful
> I could change it to override the source stanza field.
I have one.
OpenOffice.orgs homepage is www.openoffice.org. Now, since 2.3,
gt; > > Ok, just pushed the Homepage field support into dpkg git. Chose
> Homepage
> > > as that was what was requested on 142324 and what has mostly been used
> > > on the pseudo-header in the Description field.
>
> > Can you please give us some details? Some que
On 8/20/07, Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:49:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:17:03AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Ok, just pushed the Homepage field support into dpkg git. Chose H
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:49:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:17:03AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Ok, just pushed the Homepage field support into dpkg git. Chose Homepage
> > as that was what was requested on 142324 and what has mostly been
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:17:03AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Ok, just pushed the Homepage field support into dpkg git. Chose Homepage
> as that was what was requested on 142324 and what has mostly been used
> on the pseudo-header in the Description field.
Wow!, that was fast, than
ummary of where things stand with moving
> > homepage urls out from Description and into their own header?
>
> There was some debate whether to use XBS-Homepage or XBS-Url. RPM uses
> URL: as the header. Other than that, I think most everyone considers it a
> good idea.
Ok, j
38 matches
Mail list logo
