On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 15:40 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 12:47:44 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 09:58 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I admit I do not agree with this and it was discussed here before. Can > > > we please agree that anonscm.debian.org remains a valid URL and stop > > > starting another round of package uploads for the sake of changing Vcs > > > fields. > > I'm repeating myself, but could we please find another way to store > > this information than in the source package? I'd like to see all of > > the following stored somewhere else than the source package: > > * Maintainer, Uploaders > > * Vcs-* > > * Homepage > > * debian/watch > > > > Possibly also Section and Priority. > > I'm not sure now if this also has been said before, but I'm happy to > repeat it in any case. :) I'd very strongly object to completely moving > those fields out of the source packages, because it means when you get > or have a source package lying around then it's missing important > metadata and it stops being standalone, which would require checking > somewhere online, and you might first need to infer which distro/repo > was this coming from. I'll happily take outdated data than no data any > day, because usually you can use that outdated data to trace your way > to the current one, not so if it's missing. [...]
Yes, there should be a reference to the distribution. Just one reference per package, e.g. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/foo for any official Debian binary package. And that should be enforced by a lintian check on upload, and only need updating if the source package is renamed. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
