On to, 2010-08-19 at 06:56 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > A structured field makes it easier to parse; but as I said earlier, if > we decide to keep (and at some point use) them we still can do so, if > additional fields are allowed.
There was a little bit of discussion on #debian-perl about this. Summary, if I understood correctly: pkg-perl would like to use Upstream-Name to more reliably connect a CPAN module and its Debian package (Homepage does not always point at the CPAN page), and Upstream-Contact to more easily connect a Debian package of a CPAN module with its author. I can imagine Python modules, and other such sets of modules, might want to do the same thing. These sets of modules have naming schemes, but they are not always 100% accurate. Now, it is certainly true that these are convenience fields, not strictly required by Policy or ftpmaster, but nevertheless interesting to a bunch of people. Thus it makes sense to me to standardize the name rather than everyone invent their own. The compromise between strict minimalism and overall convenience, if you will. I therefore intend to keep the fields in the spec, unless there's a wave of opposition. I hope that this is acceptable. (The volume of DEP-5 discussion dropped to low enough that it's getting hard to measure consensus. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1282256623.12989.256.ca...@havelock
