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

[Josip Rodin <joy@srce.hr>]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:29:38PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>    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).

Ideally... it's not implausible to get a situation where a user notices such
a $foo-data package by itself. You can save them some time by inserting
three or four more words saying the basic genre of the game and give them a
hint on whether looking up $foo's full description would be worth it.

>    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.

I agree, I can't see how these need much improvement.

However, there is one thing that you could do -- include "dummy" or
"transitional" in the description so that deborphan can pick it up.

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.