On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:15:22PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I don't disagree with this, but I have a different view on the issue:
> (1) The canonical place for the Homepage field, in other words the
> origin, must be / is the source package. Hence it is kept in the
> debian/control file of ea
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:05:09 +0200]:
> But data should be primarily represented (warning:
> mantra begins here) where they belong to. And if the Homepage
> information belong, as I hope we all agree upon, to a source package
> then there it should be represented.
I don't disagr
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:54:48PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Yes.
Thanks.
> It is, but current usage puts it in the description for binary packages.
> One may argue that it may be because there is no description in the
> source package, but I believe it's also more useful there:
I don't, I'l
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:27:18 +0200]:
> XB- stuff can be put in
> the source part and will be propagated to all binary packages?
Yes.
> More generally I've an objection to your proposal, the "Homepage"
> property is specific of a source package,
It is, but current usage puts i
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:03:55AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage
> No objection to that, but the header should be XB-Homepage, or XSB at
> most. (That is, it should appear in Packages.gz, and probably not in
> Sources.gz.)
Dato, I'm a bit ignorant on thi
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:20:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
This is reasonable and I don'
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070718 01:27]:
> 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.
URL seems to be better, but at the end, I don't mind.
Cheers,
Andi
--
* Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070718 00:01]:
> I'm totally in favor of using a less broken standard for that, but we
> can easily start supporting the current state of the art, and then
> support both the current syntax and the new one.
I don't see any reason why not start supporting b
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:44:15AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:49:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Pierre Habouzit 2007-07-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
> > > descriptions, and display it in the packa
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:49:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Pierre Habouzit 2007-07-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
> > descriptions, and display it in the packages summaries, as it's already
> > done with XS-Vcs-Browser.
>
> XS-* is
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 devr
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Because we already have a documented convention for how a Homepage
> should be specified in a debian/control
No, we have a pseudo-standard that is not adhered to very well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>apt-cache dumpavail |grep -i homepage: | sed 's/:.*//'|
sort | uniq -c | so
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:57:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage similar to how people just
> started using XS-Vcs-Browser? Then maybe we can start putting this
> business of parsing the long description to bed.
Because we already have a documented convent
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:49:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Pierre Habouzit 2007-07-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
> > descriptions, and display it in the packages summaries, as it's already
> > done with XS-Vcs-Browser.
>
> XS-* is
* Russ Allbery [Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:57:36 -0700]:
> Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage
No objection to that, but the header should be XB-Homepage, or XSB at
most. (That is, it should appear in Packages.gz, and probably not in
Sources.gz.)
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 433469 + confirmed
Bug#433469: PTS: please parse 'Homepage:' pseudo-header in the Descriptions...
There were no tags set.
Tags added: confirmed
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Deb
tags 433469 + confirmed
thanks
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:49:32PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> XS-* is a real field, just an "unofficial" one.
> Having said that, I don't oppose this proposal, I would just prefer a
> less ugly standard used first. (Why is there a space at the beginning
> of t
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having said that, I don't oppose this proposal, I would just prefer a
> less ugly standard used first. (Why is there a space at the beginning of
> that line anyway?)
Why don't we just start using XS-Homepage similar to how people just
started using XS-
Re: Pierre Habouzit 2007-07-17 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
> descriptions, and display it in the packages summaries, as it's already
> done with XS-Vcs-Browser.
XS-* is a real field, just an "unofficial" one.
> An example of such a package i
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Please parse the Homepage: pseudo-header in the control's
descriptions, and display it in the packages summaries, as it's already
done with XS-Vcs-Browser.
An example of such a package is nsd3, note that packages.d.o has it
right: http://packages.debi
20 matches
Mail list logo
