Re: Package descriptions and making them better
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:03:21AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > an example I'd give for non-informative descriptions are the 3dwm's:
> IIRC I filed a bug on that a few weeks ago.
> Complete agreement with the parent rant BTW, and debian-proofreading
> sounds like a good idea *if* the descriptions are sent there
Spell-checking the whole lot of them would be a good start as well. See
for one approach. There would be some work involved to create a
dictionary of technical terms and acronyms to use as an auxiliary
database. Lintian warnings might be a good outlet for such a check.
I did a brief initial check by stripping out only the descriptions from
a Packages file, creating a dictionary containing all package names, and
running it through aspell. I only processed a small percentage of the
list (by hand). Here were some examples of what I found:
This doesn't even begin to address grammatical errors, of which there