Re: Usability: Technical details in package descriptions?
On 20-Jul-05, 10:47 (CDT), "W. Borgert" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> what do you think about the usefulness of technical (and other
> strange) details in package description?
While mostly agreeing with the other comments ("libbar is a C library"
is useful/appropriate; "foo is a perl program" is not.), I'd guess
this is a symptom of a more general problem: far too many package
descriptions are taken verbatim from the upstream website/whatever.
This leads to the irrelevant technical details you noted, as well
as unfounded hyperbola ("Foo is the world's best baz mangler") and
generally bad writing.
Most of these are probably worth a wishlist bug, but ONLY if accompanied
by a suggested improvement.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net