Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> writes: > On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16) >>> 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 >> well. > > Could we maybe hide library packages from apt searches by default? I think you are perhaps misinterpreting my original subject line as saying that the node packages themselves are somehow not of interest. Sorry for not making that clearer in the original subject, perhaps the new one is better? I was only referring to the quality of the descriptions -- I don't know enough about node.js to comment on the merit of the packages themselves, nor their likelihood of being of interest to people. The example I picked out was laughably useless, but most of them are packed with field-specific jargon in the short description, and lack a long description. We (as a group) appear to be learning to treat "node-*" as a flag indicating that one does not need to pay attention. That would seem to be the reason that these ITPs mostly go without comment, and thus the package gets uploaded with the same flaws. I encourage people to take a closer look, and to comment on what they find -- I've only scratched the surface, and have had a pretty good hit-rate finding things (in addition to the missing descriptions) that are worth commenting on. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature