Re: On package description quality
Em Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:08:06 +0100, Tom Badran <firstname.lastname@example.org> escreveu:
> On Sunday 05 October 2003 15:45, Tom wrote:
> > I disagree. GUI apps in Linux are so wildly disparate that knowing the
> > basic architecture is pretty important for me to decide whether or not I
> > want it.
> I second that, i consider that a very good guideline for how likely a package
> is going to integrate well with a particular DE. It also allows me to quickly
> determine that some package will have a major cascading dependency tree that
> i may or may not have installed. I also frequently will do a search for say
> "kde mail client" or such like and having kde/gtk/whatever in the description
> helps greatly on this.
I agree, and I believe it might be a good idea to have 'kde' or 'gnome'
mentioned on the detailed description. But I am also being convinced that
it is not good to have those things writen into the short description.
I'll have to rething some of my packages' short descriptions, but I think
that'll improve Debian's usability for the new comers. I usually search
for 'gtk stuff' too, but that'll match the long description, and I usually
find out the toolkit by looking at the depends, anyway, so.
Thanks for bringing this point up, debacle.
email@example.com: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
"Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"