Hi James, On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 07:48:06AM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > > > See also <http://lintian.debian.org/tags/vcs-field-not-canonical.html>, > > > so maintainers should be aware of the problem. > > > > IMHO this is the wrong attitude. While I tend to respect lintian issues > > of severity info you can not at all expect maintainers to just seek long > > standing bug free packages for such things and upload packages just > > because of this. > > My reason for pointing out the lintian check was that there exists a > mechanism to inform maintainers that their Vcs-* URLs aren't canonical.
OK. > The description for the the tag states that the non-canonical URLs will > still work due to redirections, but that it would be beneficial to > update them. What exactly is the benefit? > Nothing about that implies that one needs to upload a new package just > to fix this tag. It just means that if one happens to address that in > the course of a normal upload, tools using their Vcs-* URLs will be > slightly more performant and less likely to have transient failures. In how far will it be more performant to use anonscm? (Because the term "polemic" was involved here: I'm honestly interested in these answers - may be I simply failed to understand the technical background and if I would understand my willingness to change Vcs URLs would probably increase.) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130828115225.gk31...@an3as.eu