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 lazy to check, sorry).
It's certainly not in Policy and I find it very unlikely that we'd add it to Policy. Parsing a free-form text field is inherently broken. It is documented in the devref. I think that was a mistake, but it's an understandable one. At the time, there was a lot of push-back against adding a new dpkg control field. I think the experience of Vcs-* has proven that adding a new control field isn't that bad, and it will be a lot easier to move forward with that approach. I don't object to QA pulling the current Homepage bits from the package description, but it would be nice if it could add support for Homepage as a control field at the same time. I'm happy to make a debian-devel-announce post pointing out that the QA pages support that and asking other parsers to do so as well so that we can migrate towards a structured field. 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. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
