[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> said:

> 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.
> >   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 ?

I think it'd be silly to say that the X11 version of the editor
depended on having the non-X11 version of the editor installed.

As for executable size:
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root       228957 Apr 28 10:45 /usr/bin/elvisnox
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root       255471 Apr 28 10:44 /usr/bin/elvisx11

I also think it'd be silly to only provide the X11 version, which
currently depends on X11R6 and elf-x11r6lib.

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

Sounds like a good idea to me.  Which ctags package do you nominate?

> > >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.

As it happens, I was browsing with dselect yesterday and I noticed a
number of packages without extended descriptions:  base, bash, chfn,
fdflush, fileutils, findutils, grep, gzip, hostname, image, sed,
setserial, shellutils, syslinux, tar, textutils, timezone, news,
open, vlock, manpages, mailx, nvi, pine, libc5, libdb1, bin86,
gbinutils, electric-fence, gdb, .....  I'm confused regarding why
elviscmn should repeat the summary description information in the
extended description field when all these other packages do not.

However, the next time I update the elvis-2.0 packages I'll add an
extended description to elviscmn which mentions that exvisx11 and
elvisnox are vi clones.

I'm closing this bug report again.

Reply to: