Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Because we already have a documented convention for how a Homepage > should be specified in a debian/control
No, we have a pseudo-standard that is not adhered to very well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>apt-cache dumpavail |grep -i homepage: | sed 's/:.*//'|
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
2793 Homepage
1713 Homepage
12 homepage
11 Homepage
It's also such a bad pseudo-standard that I'm sure many developers
prefer to not follow it and not clutter the description with the
homepage. I'm one of those, and presumably many of the approximatly 85%
of packages that don't include some version the field don't for similar
reasons.
Also, note that the very same part of the developer's reference that
talks about this pseudo-field says:
Note that we expect this field will eventually be replaced by a proper
`debian/control' field understood by `dpkg' and `packages.debian.org'.
If you don't want to bother migrating the home page from the
description to this field, you should probably wait until that is
available.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
