Re: RFD: translated description with dpkg
On 29-Aug-01, 12:18 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> wrote:
> Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I also think the standalone .deb argument is pretty bogus.
>
> I disagree. A standalone .deb should never be less useful to people then
> one that is in some archive.
How is it less useful?
A standalone .deb w/o a Package file doesn't integrate into apt or
dselect, so there's no where to show the descriptions. The only reason
one would have an interest in such a .deb is that one already has a
pretty good idea of what it is, presumably from an accompaning README,
or the webpage with a link, or somesuch. I doubt very many people go
around browsing random .debs with 'dpkg-deb -I'.
I, as a developer, am responsible for what is in my packages. How can I
be responsible for things I can't read? I mean, I suppose I could work
my way through one of the Western Europeans. But Polish? Or Korean? Hah!
My contention is that any package sufficiently widely used to
attract/justify translated descriptions is very likely to be worth
setting up an archive for. Hell, I set up apt-able archives for my local
packages that no one ever sees but me, just because I want to have
consistent package management. It's just not that big a deal.
Steve
Reply to: