Bug#189343: tetex-doc: poor Description:
Package: tetex-doc
Version: 2.0.2-1
Severity: normal
The Description: of this package is:
This is teTeX, a TeX distribution for UNIX compatible systems.
.
Documentation for the Debian teTeX distribution
.
Includes: latex2e-doc
1) "This is teTeX"
Not really. It's the documentation for teTeX, or more accurately,
the documentation (component/files) of teTeX.
2) "Documentation for the Debian teTeX distribution"
This phrase is ambiguous and could mean what the author intended,
but (previous paragraph aside) most readers would get the
impression that this package contains documentation specific to the
Debian packaging of teTeX.
3) "Includes: latex2e-doc"
The meaning of this phrase is unclear. "Includes the contents of
the older Debian package `latex2e-do'" would be clear, but what is
the point of putting this information in the Description: when it
is already properly in the Replaces: field?
Ideally, all package descriptions will use the same idiom to identify
the package as the product of the practice of dividing a large
software suite that goes under one name (e.g., tetex, apache, emacs)
into several different Debian packages. I'm not sure what the
existing convention might be, but any of the following are better
replacements for the whole Description:
"The documentation of teTeX."
"teTex documentation."
"teTex's documentation."
"The documentation files of teTeX."
"The documentation component of teTeX."
IMO the last is the best (but it doesn't seem worth taking the time to
describe why).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux beth 2.4.20 #1 Wed Feb 26 02:14:42 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8
Versions of packages tetex-doc depends on:
ii dpkg 1.10.9 Package maintenance system for Deb
ii tetex-base 2.0.2-1 basic teTeX library files
-- no debconf information
Reply to: