Heyo. Figure there is a reason, but also think I should ask. What’s the reason for hex.pm web and API views not including packages’ source_url element in their responses?
I know there is the arbitrary Links section which can include pointers to different repos or things. Just don’t think that’s official as it is an arbitrary fill in publishing.
Let me know.
Hex does store packages on its own. There’s no requirement for sources to be available elsewhere.
Nah, in this case, I believe source_url to be the link to the source-code repo.
Have found out why, but not the justification for it.
Basically, source_url is not in the ‘package’ metadata in the mix.exs definition, and therefore is outside of scope for hex.pm. The Links list is, and is the recommended way as it is more flexible. I can work with this, but have to think the spec will need to move to a less arbitrary element for defining upstream source for public, at a minimum, packages that are/will be available from a centralized resource/repo.