Re: description writing guide
Colin Walters wrote:
> I think the package descriptions are a very important product of this
> project. They're going to be one of the first things people see when
> they use Debian, and their quality directly reflects on the quality of
> Debian. I've been putting in some random efforts here and there to
> comment on new package descriptions, but I finally sat down and
> committed my thoughts on description writing in a semi-coherent form:
> Please have a look at this if you're creating a new package now, and
> fixing packages you currently maintain would be great too :)
Your example lists:
Description: <perform some function, do some task> <for GNOME/KDE/WindowMaker/GNU/Linux>
foo is a <function> program, designed to help
you <task>. <more simple details about task>. Written for
the <environment>, it supports <feature1> and <feature2>.
<You can find more information about foo at http://www.foo.org.>
It is a bad practice to repeat the package name as the first word in the
Also the URL does not belong into the description but should be
placed in the debian/copyright file instead.
To quote Joey Hess:
The Description field is not intended to be a random dumping-ground
for any information that cannot fit into some other field.
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer. -- Perl book
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.