Colin Watson wrote: > I object. It's a waste of considerable effort to go around adding "This > package has no upstream URL" to several thousand packages. I think we've > already informally agreed that having upstream URLs in package > descriptions [1] where packages.debian.org can see them is a good thing; > policy doesn't need to change here, packages can just go right ahead and > do it in cases where it is appropriate.
I agree. > [1] Discounting the argument about whether a new field should be added, > for the sake of brevity. Well, rats! :-) That's the interesting bit and the bit policy could do something about. -- see shy jo
pgpYv2ycV0aXk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
