Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
> However I've found a number of packages which use a long
> description which is more or less the _same_ as the short
> description.
This is just a thought, but perhaps the control file could
incorporate a mechanism for common description of packages
from the same source. For example, NetCDF has a fine
description for the main package, but lousy, redundant ones
for sub-packages, such as netcdfg-dev:
Development kit for NetCDF.
Includes headers, static libraries, and documentation.
The maintainer has often already put time into making a good
description for the main package, and it would be lovely if
that description could also appear in sub-packages with
little effort and without copy-and-paste.
Thanks for your efforts to improve descriptions!
thanks,
-neil
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> Policy section 2.3.3 states:
> The description should be written so that it gives the system
> administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
> package.
> However I've found a number of packages which use a long description
> which
> is more or less the _same_ as the short description. Sample:
> $ apt-cache show kdebase-data
> (...)
> Description: KDE Base (shared data)
> KDE Base (shared data).
> .
> This package is part of the official KDE base module.
> And some (2) others which do not provide an extended description at
> all or
> provide an extended description of only one line. I've used an ugly
> scripts
> (attached) which produces ugly results (attached too).
> I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages
> who fail to produce a proper description?
> I would probably first do so for the packages whose short description =
> long description or who do not have a description at all and would
> review
> which of the "one liners" do not provide sufficient information.
> Regards
> Javi
Reply to: