Quoting Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Right. These are staid, old, boring, unchanging fields; and
> maintainers need not expect these to change; and putting them in policy
> means that even dpkg can't change the fields drastically fro under the
> developers.
>
> Howe
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:56:29 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Actually, policy is usually the last thing that you want to do, in
>> the general case. Policy is usually stable (well, not quite as
>> stable as it has been this ye
Quoting Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Actually, policy is usually the last thing that you want to
> do, in the general case. Policy is usually stable (well, not quite as
> stable as it has been this year, but work seems to be easing up a
> trifle, so expect a policy release in
* Manoj Srivastava [Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:51:03 -0500]:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:08:12 +0300, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > At the very least, lintian should stop warning about Homepage:, right?
> > (Sorry if it already doesn't warn, I haven't had time to upgrade and
> > the machine
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:08:12 +0300, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> pe, 2007-09-21 kello 16:44 +0200, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti:
>> * Christian Perrier [Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200]:
>>
>> > Again, please comment,
>>
>> Personally, I think the change that should really go first is
pe, 2007-09-21 kello 16:44 +0200, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti:
> * Christian Perrier [Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200]:
>
> > Again, please comment,
>
> Personally, I think the change that should really go first is lintian/linda
> (emitting a warning for packages that put the homepage in the descript
* Christian Perrier [Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200]:
> Again, please comment,
Personally, I think the change that should really go first is lintian/linda
(emitting a warning for packages that put the homepage in the description),
since that's what will make most packages change, and will give t
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Homepage thing, I would much rather see a working design, supported by
> apt and p.d.o, make any changes or tweaks as are needed; and _then_ we
p.d.o already supports it. "apt-cache show" obviouly displays the field.
The work left concerns higher-l
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:02:56 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Lars Wirzenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
>> added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
>> debian-devel-announce. Then next
Hi,
IANADD but...
Christian Perrier wrote:
> Then file a bug against *apt* packages and p.d.o to have them support
> displaying info from that field, before or after the d-d-a
> announcement.
you wrote what I thought when I read this proposal. After all it makes
sense to first add support for th
Quoting Lars Wirzenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
> added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
> debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to
> react and upload new packages, do a mass bug fil
>
> I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
> added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
> debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to
> react and upload new packages, do a mass bug filing.
Basically agreed. I created
http://w
I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test
added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on
debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to
react and upload new packages, do a mass bug filing.
Basically agreed. I created
http://wiki.debia
Luca Capello wrote:
> This is strange: the Homepage field is shown for some packages [1] and
> not for others [2], e.g. reported below:
> =
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show ikiwiki | grep "^Homepage"
> Homepage: http://ikiwiki.info/
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show deb-gview | grep
Hello!
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:31:31 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:05:04 +0200 Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> As a consequence, it seems logical to promote the use of that field
>> and recommend abandoning "Homepage" paragraphs in packages'
>> description.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:22:14AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Moreover I said that we might be able to parse debian/copyright for
> potential homepage strings.
Yep, I got that, sorry for not replying on it.
But this does not seem really feasible to me: in debian/copyright you
almost always hav
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Ah, ok, so probably the initial proposal was to file bugs against
packages using the pseudo Homepage field in the description, asking the
maintainers to convert it in the new one.
No I think you did understand the initial proposal right, but I was
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:49:17AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Bugging those packages that contain an url in the description first?
> Perhaps grepping debian/copyright for potential homepage strings?
Ah, ok, so probably the initial proposal was to file bugs against
packages using the pseudo Home
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
To me it doesn't seem easy to implement. The naive solution of bugging
all package without a Homepage field will not work because not all
package probably have an Homepage; I agree that the false negatives
would be only a few, but that's not a valid
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:57:44AM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > Of course, a mass bug-filing could also later happen but that would
> > probably be a *huge* bug filing which should be avoided now. Entering
> > a transition period where all communication media towards develpers
> > are used to s
Hi
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:05:04 +0200
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a consequence, it seems logical to promote the use of that field
> and recommend abandoning "Homepage" paragraphs in packages'
> description.
>
> As, in the Smith review project conducted on debian-l10n-engli
to, 2007-09-20 kello 07:05 +0200, Christian Perrier kirjoitti:
> Of course, a mass bug-filing could also later happen but that would
> probably be a *huge* bug filing which should be avoided now. Entering
> a transition period where all communication media towards develpers
> are used to suggest sw
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:05:04AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> A recent discussion back in August, in -devel, showed that the current
> common trick of using a "Homepage:" pseudo-field in binary packages'
> descriptions is not really optimal.
Indeed. It's formally specified to be used in the
23 matches
Mail list logo
