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

Re: Done

Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:24:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:37:48 -0500, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> said: 
>> > There is a distinct difference between recognizing what is missing
>> > from a description, and being able to fill in the gap.  The two acts
>> > are complementary.  What helps maintainers is to understand what the
>> > questions *are* that users are going to ask about their package
>> > description.  It's hard to know what questions are going to be asked
>> > when you already know the answer yourself; this is not something
>> > that can be changed through expressions of disdain.
>> 	How about these criteria?
>>  a) What does the package do? If it is an add-on to another package,
>>     then the short description of the package we are an add on to
>>     should be put in here
>>  b) Why should I want this package?  This is related  to the above,
>>     but not the same (this is a mail user agent; this is cool, fast,
>>     interfaces with pgp and ldap and imap, has features X, Y, and Z)
>>  c) If this package should not be installed directly, but is pulled in
>>     by another package, this should be mentioned
>>  d) If the package is experimental, or there are other reasons it
>>     should not be used, if there are other packages that should be
>>     used instead, it should be here as well
>>  e) How is this package different from the competition? Is it a better
>>     implementation? more features? different features? Why should I
>>     chose this package (b should talk about the class of packages, and
>>     e about this particular package, if you have both b and e related
>>     information).
>>  f) ???
> These seem like very reasonable and helpful criteria.  Perhaps they
> could be placed somewhere (developer's reference, policy footnote?)
> where they'll be generally visible to maintainers?
I strongly second that.

Andreas Rottmann         | Rotty@ICQ      | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at
http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Packages should build-depend on what they should build-depend.

Reply to: