Re: Done
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:53:53 -0500, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> said:
> If you are able to recognize that a given package description is
> inadequate, you are also capable of discerning *what* is wrong with
> it, even if you don't know what the package does; and you are
Umm.
Package: blacs-lam-test
Description: Basic Linear Algebra Communications Subprograms
This package provides programs to test your BLACS libraries.
Let us see. Whats is a Basic Linear Algebra Communications
Subprogram? What kind of tests are provided? Why should I want to
install this package?
I recognize this desciption is inadequate, mostly because I
have no idea what the package in question does. What are Linear
Algebra Communications? Are there communications programs, as
opposed to subprograms? Heck, I don't even know enough to ask
intelligent questions.
> therefore very much qualified to contribute comments to individual
> package description bugs in the BTS, which is likely the most time
> consuming part of the exercise of getting these bugs addressed, and
Hmm. I do not think I have the information to create a
description, sorry. Of course, I can reasearch the program, and
probably do the maintainers job for him, but I do not have time to do
this kind of research and work for a package that supposedlyu has a
full time maintainer devoted to the package.
> which does not require familiarity with the package. Contrary to
> Manoj's sneering, there is very good reason to believe that those
> most qualified to maintain a given package in other respects are
> also least likely to be able to identify those traits that render
> their package descriptions problematic for users unfamiliar with the
> package. So if you want good package descriptions, don't complain
> -- help.
You thought I was merely sneering? Lord, I must have been the
model of restraint.
This is not about people not turning out perfect description
for people unfamiliar with the package; I understand how one can be
too close to a package to figure out exactly what areas need further
explanation. But if you can't expand the *LONG* description beyond a
measly 80ncharacters, you are not even trying.
All this red herring of an excuse that "we are too close to a
package to ber the best person to document it" is just that -- a red
herring. The issue at hand is nto a the optimal description -- it is
a a description that tries to explain what a package does, why it
could be useful, and how to distinguich it from any competition, and
whether one need install it directly -- all in under 80 chars.
The complain is not asking the developoer to turn out a
description that satisfies all kinds of novice users -- it is to try
and provide a Long description that even attempts to address some of
these questions.
No matter how close I am to a package (and I have been ribbed
at length for the ucf man page) -- I should be able to provide a
multi sentence paragraph describing my package.
And, BTW, you did not see me whining that people who
complained about the ucf man page provide me with a working patch to
improve it -- or worse, yelled at them for daring to complain without
providing clues, helps, suggestions, and patches. I took a poll, and
fixed the man page ti the best of my ability.
manoj
--
A good memory does not equal pale ink.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Done
- From: Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>
- Re: Done
- From: Greg Folkert <greg@gregfolkert.net>
- Re: Done
- From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
- References:
- Re: Done
- From: Marek Habersack <grendel@debian.org>
- Re: Done
- From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
- Re: Done
- From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
- Re: Done
- From: benfoley <benfoley@web.de>
- Re: Done
- From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>