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

Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs

Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16)
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:53:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>> At present you are forcing that vast majority of our users, that have 
>> no interest in this software, to individually learn that they need to 
>> look out for the node- prefix, and ignore such packages.

Thanks, Philip, for raising this concern.  I agree with it.

> Vast majority of users would only install this via dependencies. It's 
> hardly a node-specific problem that debian package searches output 
> large amount of packages that are not useful unless you happen to be a 
> programmer.

...and I agree that the issue is not specific to node-* packages, but I 
find it is quite common there.  Quite likely due to recent inclusion of 
lots of packages, prepared semi-automated - as Philip pointed out very 

> The only people installing node libs directly would be node 
> developers, for whom matching description with upstream project is 
> valuable. If the description is not useful for developer either ( for 
> example "Itty bitty little widdle twinkie pinkie" ), better propose 
> the upstream project a more concise description, than to carry extra 
> delta in debian.

It seems you argue that package descriptions need not make sense beyond 
the package section they belong to.  I disagree, and it seems Debian 
Policy disagrees too - see § 3.4:

> The description should describe the package (the program) to a user 
> (system administrator) who has never met it before so that they have 
> enough information to decide whether they want to install it.  This 
> description should not just be copied verbatim from the program's 
> documentation.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Reply to: