On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:35AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >One low-tech thing that one could do is just put, in the package long
> >description, a note that the software is dead upstream. Personally, I
> >think that's often information worthy of being in the long description;
> >one purpose
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
One low-tech thing that one could do is just put, in the package long
description, a note that the software is dead upstream. Personally, I
think that's often information worthy of being in the long description;
one purpose of the long description, after
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I do not really care about the _content_ of a homepage of the
> project. I care about the _existence_. The fact that there is _no_
> homepage or there _was_ a homepage and is not _anymore_ is IMHO an
> important piece of information that I want t
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
Well, a third and fourth alternative would be to download the
documentation from archive.org, and (assuming you have the right for
distribution) but them in a -doc package or put it on
people.debian.o
On Feb 17, 2008 4:59 PM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm maintaining the package fastdnaml and wanted to move the Homepage
> information I putted into the long description formerly to the Homepage
> tag of the control file. When doing so I verified that the home page is
> correct b
Hello,
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Well, a third and fourth alternative would be to download the
> documentation from archive.org, and (assuming you have the right for
> distribution) but them in a -doc package or put it on
> people.debian.org - in that case your might want to
Hi!
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080218 14:40]:
> Ahhh, just learned something new. ;-)
> I just tried it for the special case fastdnaml where I have to
> cope with the vanished homepage and noticed it in the copyright
> file. But I'm not fully convinced that this is a good general
> sol
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
No, I meant archive.org (not .com as I wrote previously, sorry). They
archive web pages like a library (see for example
http://web.archive.org/web/19970502070835/http://www.debian.org/), and
maybe the have the documentation pages of your software ar
Hi!
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080218 07:59]:
>> If there was usefull content on it (e.g. documentation) you could
>> try to link to the specific page of archive.com; not the best solution,
>> but better than nothing I would say.
> You mean linking to http://packages.debian.org/sid/ if
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
Well, I would say, that if only usefull purpouse of the homepage was to
download the tarball, than you can just drop the homepage header;
appearently the user has no nead for the tarball ;)
Well, you are right that there is no need to point to a pu
Hi!
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080217 21:10]:
>> AFAICT, it would seem that didiwiki is in this group as well. I found plenty
>> of links to it's nonexistant homepage. It's a frusterating situation, since
>> most users (myself included) expect to be able to go to the homepage and
>> fin
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Jack T Mudge III wrote:
>
>> AFAICT, it would seem that didiwiki is in this group as well. I found
>> plenty of links to it's nonexistant homepage. It's a frusterating
>> situation, since most users (myself included) expect to be able to go to
>> the ho
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Jack T Mudge III wrote:
AFAICT, it would seem that didiwiki is in this group as well. I found plenty
of links to it's nonexistant homepage. It's a frusterating situation, since
most users (myself included) expect to be able to go to the homepage and
find out more about the p
On Saturday 16 February 2008 11:59:29 pm Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm maintaining the package fastdnaml and wanted to move the Homepage
> information I putted into the long description formerly to the Homepage
> tag of the control file. When doing so I verified that the home page is
> correc
On su, 2008-02-17 at 08:59 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> This would require a certain keyword because it would make no sense for
> the tools who build web pages from the control info to "not available"
> or something like that.
>
> What do you think about this?
I think it would make sense to use
Hi,
I'm maintaining the package fastdnaml and wanted to move the Homepage
information I putted into the long description formerly to the Homepage
tag of the control file. When doing so I verified that the home page is
correct but failed. The project seems to have vanished from the web.
I have t
16 matches
Mail list logo
