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't object that. > 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. I prefer Homepage. URL is not a meaningful name in the present context, it's just a way to addressing stuff, it doesn't say what is being addressed, while "Homepage" does. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature