On Friday 01 September 2006 15:31, Sam Morris wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:23:20 +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote: > > On 31/08/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> also sprach Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.31.1639 +0200]: > >> > Please no, as tools will start to use X-Homepage, you will have to > >> > keep compatibility for long time. And if tools won't use it, it > >> > makes no use to include it in debian/control. I always wondered > >> > why there is no proper support for Homepage:... > >> > >> Those are the laws of adoption, yes. I don't think compatibility is > >> so hard to achieve here, but you are right: we must not act > >> prematurely. > >> > >> Anyway, the reason why there's no proper support is, of course, > >> because noone has provided patches yet... > > > > And pathces are not there because there is a herd of people who oppose > > violently to adding a Homepage: field to the control file. The main > > arguments (which are stupid IMHO) are that: > > > > [...] > > A more practical reason not to do it is that the homepage may move, > leaving us publishing outdated information for the rest of the stable > release.
Same holds true for the URLs stored in the copyright file (downloaded from...), in the watch file, and in the rules file (if you have the optional get-orig-source target). Thus these basically sit exactly on the same line. OTOH having to remember so many files to update/fix site locations is no fun at all. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]