Package description review (in ITP)
Hi,
A good package description is important, because sysadmin often decide
to install a package (or not), base on it's description.
Shouldn't we suggest/require that the descriptions in ITP bugs includes
the intended description for the package? (as opposed to a mere copy of
upstream description)
If debian-devel readers knew for that the submitted description is the
one intended to be uploaded, they wouldn't hesitate to provide feedback
(spell checking, grammar, lack of context, clarity issues, etc.)
Current ITP look likes this:
> * Package name : test
> Version : x.y.z
> Upstream Author : Name <somebody@example.org>
> * URL : http://www.example.org/
> * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
> Programming Lang: (C, C++, C#, Perl, Python, etc.)
> Description : test
>
> (Include the long description here.)
I suggest to replace the last line with:
> (Include the intended long description of the package here.)
A few other ressources needs to be changed too:
In http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ :
Before:
> submit a bug report against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your
> plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to,
> a description of the package, the license of the prospective package,
> and the current URL where it can be downloaded from.
New:
> submit a bug report against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your
> plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to,
> the intended package description, the license of the prospective
> package, and the current URL where it can be downloaded from.
* http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html
In paragraph «Adding new entries with "reportbug"», replace:
> Below the "Description" line you should give more information about
> the package.
By:
> Below the "Description" line you should write the description you
> intend for the package so other can review it. (If you Request For
> Package, you can just give more information about the package).
Voilà,
Franklin
Reply to: