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

Re: Done (was Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations)

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:

> Just a note to all developers that I have sent the bugs (734) related to
> this policy violation.

   Ok, now that I've calmed down a bit, I won't bitch about the useless
dupes, and I'm even willing to fix my stuff. However there are 13 of my
packages for which I don't really know how to enhance the description.

   Can anyone suggest better descriptions for my -data packages? I have
five packages (allegro-demo, kq, rafkill, powermanga, wing) that are
split in ${foo} and ${foo}-data, with this description:

Package: ${foo}-data
Description: graphics and audio data for ${foo}
 This package contains the architecture-independent data for ${foo}.

   Of course ${foo} has the full, proper description. I did not want to
do longer long descriptions for -data packages because I want a keyword
search to return the main package, not the -data package (which should
ideally be hidden).

   I also have 8 other legacy packages, which should not be installed
and are only here to provide smooth upgrades. The description is like
this example:

Package: vlc-alsa
Description: legacy package that you should remove
 This package is now called vlc-plugin-alsa.

   Again, the vlc-plugin-alsa package has a proper and complete long
description. Would "You should remove this package. It is now called
vlc-plugin-alsa." be a better long description? Does it meet the
average user's expectations?


Reply to: