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

Re: Bug#114737: libbusiness-onlinepayment-authorizenet-perl: Please provide a useful long description!!


 First of all, I read debian-devel just in the archives, so please Cc:
me on replies, thanks.

 This answer to a bugreport hits my nerves.  It's not the first time I
stumble upon stupid package descriptions.  This descriptions just toped
it.  It seems to me just like those inlying EULA you accept when you
remove the plastic-cover from a package.  Although the package is GPLed
I still think this comparison is acceptable.

 Don't get it wrong, it's nothing personal, Ivan - I just take it as a
reference.  There is more than just your package that is broken in this

 It is in somewhat slightly different to msgid:<20010930133304.A4360@torrent>
in which mail Daniel Burrows pointed out general mistakes that are done
in package descriptions, and gramatically problems.

 I'm aiming purely at understanding problems what for the Description
field is.

* ivan <ivan@420.am> [2001-10-07 16:59]:
> This bug is severity _wishlist_.  I don't disagree it is a bug, but I
> disagree that there is a clear policy violation (as, for example,
> Bug#104755).

 Alright, you might be right that it's not a clear policy violation -
it's just an ignorance of the policy.  Let's cite the part again for the
debian-devel readers to get the context:

| 5.7. Descriptions of packages - the `Description' field
| -------------------------------------------------------
|      The description is intended to describe the program to a user who has
|      never met it before so that they know whether they want to install it.
|      It should also give information about the significant dependencies and
|      conflicts between this package and others, so that the user knows why
|      these dependencies and conflicts have been declared.

 It's clearly stated that the description should describe the package
_before_ one installs it.  What part of this is the thing you don't
understand?  Lets show your descriptions I'm refering to:

| Package: libbusiness-onlinepayment-authorizenet-perl
| Description: AuthorizeNet backend for Business::OnlinePayment
|  For detailed information see Business::OnlinePayment.
| Package: libbusiness-onlinepayment-bankofamerica-perl
| Description: Bank of America backend for Business::OnlinePayment
|  For detailed information see Business::OnlinePayment.

 It is not acceptable that one should be refered to the inlying
documentation.  The package description should stand for itself and
describe the package.

> Your use of the wording "plain stupid wishlist" and the threat "Rather be
> happy that I haven't ranked it higher than just normal" implies you are
> imposing your own bias on bug severities.

 No, it imposes that we have different views.  And I guess your one is
the one who's wrong this time.

 Like, just take a look at the 3dwm packages.  I won't cite the whole
report, if you want to see what I mean it's documented in
<http://bugs.debian.org/111431> and the reopen of the report

 These packages were notified in the former thread already, but doesn't
seem to have been changed.  They still have the same long description,
although the long description seem to have improved a little:

| Package: libzorn-dev
| Description: A tridimensional workspace manager
|  These are libzorn development files.

 It's a correct long description, but it should also describe what the
libzorn is about and what for it's needed.  One should be able to decide
on the package itself if s/he wants to install it.  One shouldn't have
to need to search for the according package and try to found out there
what libzorn is about, just to find out that:

| Package: libzorn
| Description: A tridimensional workspace manager
|  This library is core of 3Dwm paintings (output)
|  functions

 I personally don't find this helpful - judge yourself.

[47 lines of fullquotes snipped - _please_ learn to quote from
  upside-down with context!]

 So long,
 You never learn anything  |   /"""""\                   ,'~~.
   by doing it right.      |  / chaos \  alfie.ist.org   |o ?~\
           -- unknown      |  \inside!/  alfie@ist.org  /_   ~<\
                           |   \_____/                   \__,~ \>

Reply to: