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 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 questions follow ... > > > - if I got this correctly it means that I can start adding 'Homepage' > > fields (no heading 'X', no fake fields in description) to my > > debian/controls, right? > > Yes, you'll get several warnings from different dpkg-* programs and the > field will be ignored until you start using the new dpkg, though. > > > - should the field be put in the source stanza of debian/control or in > > the various binary stanzas? > > Yes, only in the source stanza (the ones in the binary stanzas will be > ignored and warned), and it will propagate to the source and all the > binary packages. > > 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. > > > - probably not dpkg's business, but will the field flow to the Packages > > files of the archive? What about the Sources? > > Yes, all fields that get into the binary packages should end up in the > meta indices. > > regards, > guillem > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
I was thinking about this field, and "Homepage" sounds a bit ambiguous in my ear. I would suggest changing it to "Upstream" instead. This because not all "upstreams" has a "homepage" per definition of "homepage" in modern sense. -- /Carl Fürstenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
