On Fri Apr 04, 02:31pm -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 04-Apr-03, 08:38 (CST), David B Harris <email@example.com> wrote: > > And descriptions should be relatively understood by people who have > > almost no idea what the package is for beforehand; if they can't > > eliminate it as a possibility for whatever package they're looking for, > > it's a useless description. > > But there's a limit to this: it's okay to describe something as "A Perl > module to perform Fast Fourier Transforms" without defining what FFTs > are, because Debian package descriptions are not math textbooks. Of course, there's a limit :) Just stating what I thought the limit was, in this particular instance. Also qualified it with "relatively" and "almost" - in this case, with your example, I would expect somebody to know beforehand what Perl was, and what a module was. Given that, the description is enough to rule it out as a possibility for what they're looking for in most cases.
Description: PGP signature