On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:03:55AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage
No objection to that, but the header should be XB-Homepage, or XSB at
most. (That is, it should appear in Packages.gz, and probably not in
Sources.gz.)
Dato, I'm a bit ignorant on this,
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:27:18 +0200]:
XB- stuff can be put in
the source part and will be propagated to all binary packages?
Yes.
More generally I've an objection to your proposal, the Homepage
property is specific of a source package,
It is, but current usage puts it in
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:54:48PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Yes.
Thanks.
It is, but current usage puts it in the description for binary packages.
One may argue that it may be because there is no description in the
source package, but I believe it's also more useful there:
I don't, I'll
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:05:09 +0200]:
But data should be primarily represented (warning:
mantra begins here) where they belong to. And if the Homepage
information belong, as I hope we all agree upon, to a source package
then there it should be represented.
I don't disagree
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:15:22PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I don't disagree with this, but I have a different view on the issue:
snip
(1) The canonical place for the Homepage field, in other words the
origin, must be / is the source package. Hence it is kept in the
debian/control file of
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
descriptions, and display it in the packages summaries, as it's already
done with XS-Vcs-Browser.
An example of such a package is nsd3, note that packages.d.o has it
right:
Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having said that, I don't oppose this proposal, I would just prefer a
less ugly standard used first. (Why is there a space at the beginning of
that line anyway?)
Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage similar to how people just
started using
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 433469 + confirmed
Bug#433469: PTS: please parse 'Homepage:' pseudo-header in the Descriptions...
There were no tags set.
Tags added: confirmed
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
* Russ Allbery [Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:57:36 -0700]:
Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage
No objection to that, but the header should be XB-Homepage, or XSB at
most. (That is, it should appear in Packages.gz, and probably not in
Sources.gz.)
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:57:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage similar to how people just
started using XS-Vcs-Browser? Then maybe we can start putting this
business of parsing the long description to bed.
Because we already have a documented
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Because we already have a documented convention for how a Homepage
should be specified in a debian/control
No, we have a pseudo-standard that is not adhered to very well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~apt-cache dumpavail |grep -i homepage: | sed 's/:.*//'|
sort | uniq -c | sort
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed, but fwiw I think that supporting Homepage: as requested in
this bug report is even more justified than supporting Vcs-* (and notice
that I actually proposed the latter). In fact 'Homepage' is a
convention described in policy or devref (too
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:49:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Pierre Habouzit 2007-07-17 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
descriptions, and display it in the packages summaries, as it's already
done with XS-Vcs-Browser.
XS-* is a real
* Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070718 00:01]:
I'm totally in favor of using a less broken standard for that, but we
can easily start supporting the current state of the art, and then
support both the current syntax and the new one.
I don't see any reason why not start supporting
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070718 01:27]:
I suppose one open question is whether to use Homepage or use Url, as some
packages do already have Url headers and none are currently using
Homepage. RPM uses URL.
URL seems to be better, but at the end, I don't mind.
Cheers,
Andi
--
15 matches
Mail list logo
