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

Re: "Description improvement" probably not



On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:05:01PM +0000, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> Just uselessly pontificating.

While your message is sarcastic, it's also correct in this case.

A package's short description is frequently not a complete sentence.

I have a tendency to write my packages' short description such that they
would be meaningful as part of some sort of status or progress indicator:

Configuring Low Bandwidth X (LBX) proxy server...
Configuring X Athena widget set library...
Unpacking virtual framebuffer X server...
Re-configuring the XFree86 X server...

Of course I think this is a good idea, and I think everyone should do it
this way, but I also know better than to be a spokesman for it, because
that will stimulate pointless opposition.  ("Overfiend supports it, so
it must be wrong!  Somehow, it will ban people from sending dozens of
helpful DDTS emails to every developer, every day!")

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      We either learn from history or,
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      uh, well, something bad will
branden@debian.org                 |      happen.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Bob Church

Attachment: pgpjpP4v4_PuK.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: