Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>]

Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: send 3013"):
> This has been answered.  I'm marking it closed.
...

I seem to be missing your answer and my reply, which I think I sent,
but can't find in the bug system.  Perhaps I'm mistaken.  I hope you
won't mind if I reopen the bug report.

You wrote:
> [Ian Jackson wrote:]
> > Firstly, it would be helpful if the elvis packages could be merged soo
> > that there weren't so many of them.
>
> They are:
>   elviscmn -- common files needed by elvisx11 and/or elvisnox
>   elvisx11 -- elvis with an X11 gui interface, needs libX11
>   elvisnox -- elvis without X11 gui interface, doesn't need libX11
>   elvisctags -- ctags from the elvis source package, should be separate
>
> Is there a clean way of getting the common-files treatment without
> needing a separate elviscmn package?  If so, where is this documented
> in the dpkg usage docs? ;-]

I think I asked, and am fairly sure I haven't had an answer to:

Why do you need all this lot of granularity ?  Can't we just have the
elvisx11 package depend on elvisnox, and do away with the elviscmn
package entirely ?  Come to think of it, are these binaries at all
large, and if so why do we need them in separate packages ?

Don't we want to phase elvisctags out - isn't one ctags program enough
for the project ?

> >Secondly, the descriptions of the packages are too short: there are no
> >extended descriptions.
>
> All the packages except elviscmn have extended descriptions.
> The summary description in elviscmn says all that there is to say.
> Should I repeat it more verbosely in an extended description?

I think I replied:

Yes, you should repeat it.  Remember that the description for the
other elvis packages may not be available at the time.

>...

Ian.