On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:47:22PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 20-Jul-05, 10:47 (CDT), "W. Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> wrote:
> > what do you think about the usefulness of technical (and other
> > strange) details in package description?
>
> While mostly agreeing with the other comments ("libbar is a C library"
> is useful/appropriate; "foo is a perl program" is not.), I'd guess
> this is a symptom of a more general problem: far too many package
> descriptions are taken verbatim from the upstream website/whatever.
> This leads to the irrelevant technical details you noted, as well
> as unfounded hyperbola ("Foo is the world's best baz mangler") and
> generally bad writing.
>
> Most of these are probably worth a wishlist bug, but ONLY if accompanied
> by a suggested improvement.
Most such phrases I have seen can be 'improved' merely by deleting
them. They're content-free.
I guess you could provide patches reducing the description to one or
two lines, but it seems kinda like a waste of effort.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature