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

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Quoting Andreas Tille (tillea@rki.de):
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>> Please note that debian-l10n-english suggests using the enumeration
>> style you mention for a2ps, when we're reviewing package
>> descriptions...
> BTW, once you answered in this thread: Shouldn't we make the suggested
> enhancements part of the Smith-Project?

Certainly. I currently refrain myself from reading -devel (it seems
like we are in this state of the release cycle where flame wars and
complicated discussions increase.....and I try saving my own time for
productive work) but I would appreciate a summary in case things and
ideas converge (good luck for this..:-))

Another thing we encourage in Smith is the use of good boilerplates in
package descriptions, for multi-binary packages....The point is having
a repetitive part common to all packages of a give source package,
that is the description of the general use of the "framework" and 1 or
2 specific paragraphs for each binary package saying things like "This
package provides the development files for <foo>", etc.

A good example of this is the recent review of "nut" templates....that
was one of the most complicated review we did (mostly because this is
one of the few where the maintainer gave advices...:-))

That review starts at

...and turned out into #520591.... I suggest interested parties to
look at debian/control for nut before and after the review..:-)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: