Re: Package descriptions and making them better
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 02:16:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> was heard to say:
> I strongly agree with the bulk of your message. I suggest we take
> advantage of the so-far-unused debian-l10n-english list for this
> purpose. Sometimes even native English speakers need a little help, so
> I can see this list easily encompassing the goals of your proposed
> debian-proofreading list.
I actually almost proposed, in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, using some
sort of "translation to English" designation for a project like this;
however, it seems like it's not quite a good fit of terminology -- although
some "translation" will be necessary, the style and content will need
to be looked at as well.
That said, it may be easier to use an existing list than to bug the
There's also the question of what to do when maintainers don't bother
fixing a bad description, but I don't think much can be done there,
other than asking them whether they have time to maintain the package.
I think making bad descriptions RC is probably overkill.
Most maintainers, though, have dealt with my bugs about descriptions
either immediately or in the next upload; the problem is that no-one
(certainly not me :) ) really has the time and energy to scrutinize each
of our 6000 or so packages for correctness. I filed at least a dozen or
two bugs, and that was only scratching the surface of the worst
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <email@example.com> -------------------\
| "Hah, I can just see a real playsmith puttin' a..a DONKEY in a play!" |
| -- Terry Pratchett, _Lords and Ladies_ |
\------- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org --------/