On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 02:24, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 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 > 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? Great basic rule of thumb... first off if you DO NOT know what BLACS or LAM is... you don't need it. I apply this rule everywhere. And obviously you should as well. If you knew what BLACS or LAM then you would definitely know >WHAT< it is and >WHY< you would need it. > > 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. We(you and Ben) are forgetting the prime reason Debian exists. If you don't know that you obviously shouldn't be on the Devel list. Maybe you should just go over to Debian User and actually interface with people having problems that need to be solved. Rather than piss and moan about descriptions that are obvious, when you do need them you know they apply. > > 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. > > 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. Maybe you should understand that a mere 80 characters *MIGHT* be all that is needed. I see Debian descriptions and they are very understandable to me, when I know HOW they apply. I would hesitate to make some of them longer, as it would make them similar to a fluffy romance novel. Granted I am not saying that efforts are not lacking in some areas... there are FAR FAR greater issues to mend before fluffy cruft needs to be addressed. As I said before, interface with those that are standing next to a tree, cannot see the bark on the tree, those trees being in the forest. When you can see how ludicrous this R&R (rant & rave) is... > 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. For this I commend you. But, for those people new to Debian (or Linux for that matter) or even just taking baby steps outside the box of stability or just seeing what the weather looks like in Sarge... this is really the least of the worries. Novice users are just that. Ain't a single one of them concerned about descriptions when they can't even get the DAMN thing to run or can't play half-life or quake or UT or SIMS etc... even checking mail is a problem for them typically coming from Lookout Expend and Infernal Exploiter on Microshizzle WindozeXPloited. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry Ever so slightly, you remind me of a staircase falling exotically into a sea of spilled macaroni.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part