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

Re: Package descriptions and making them better

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:11:23PM +1000, Steven Hanley wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:27:13PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:41:05PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > What's wrong with using the recently discussed Debian Translation Server for
> > > this. Add the language English and people can then submit corrected
> > > descriptions for each package.
> > 
> > Because that would be an ugly hack?
> well apart from the fact the translation server is not the official way to do
> it yet, ie no general consensu from all developers (does such ever happen
> anyway) I thought it sounded quite clean, and less of a hack than special
> casing english.

Well, if you want to remove descriptions from packages altogether
(and have them all come from the translation database) then that
would be symetrical at least.

Or allow the debian/control description to be in any language,
with the others supplied by the translation database.

But having an English description which can be overridden by an
English database is ugly.

Since we're apparently into overriding things that the maintainer
does, why don't we have a mechanism where anyone can upload a patch
to the source package, for use in all binary packages? Then you could
upload a patch to override decisions made by other maintainers that
you don't agree with. For example, next time somebody gets in a flamewar
with Herbert Xu on this list about the kernel packages, we can just
upload a patch to override him.

Sound like a bad idea? Same with descriptions...

I don't see i386 being much of a special case any more. Especially
since ftp-master (auric) is non-i386. The only thing is the missing
debian-i386 list. I'm sure it would be created if there was enough

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: