Hi On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:05:04 +0200 Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 project conducted on debian-l10n-english, we
> review packages' descriptions, we would like to get more input about
> recommending the use of that new field from now.
>
> Are there any reasons *not* to do so (such as other tools that would be
> broken or the like)?
Well I started to use this field in some my packages, but I see few
problems:
1. Policy does not cover this field, you will also get "I:
unknown-field-in-control homepage" from lintian.
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.
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
