On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > > > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one source file > > > which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libfoo", > > > libfoo-doc = "documention for libfoo", and libfoo = "runtime files for foo > > > library", without bothering to describe what "foo" actually is. > > > well, duh! like nobody would ever guess that a package called libfoo-doc was > > > the documentation for libfoo. tell the reader something we DON'T know. > > But he knows what libfoo is - or at least he is just a > > $ apt-cache show libfoo > > away from that information. Do we need to duplicate the description of a > > library package in each and every supporting package? > Not all of it, but you can't object to duplicating a single sentence saying > what it is. When the sentence in question is the one that goes in the short description, and already fills the available space without prepending "runtime files for foo "? Is the concern here with the short descs (I don't expect much from short descs of affiliate packages), or with the long descs? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp2vWfLrs9J0.pgp
Description: PGP signature