[Fwd: Re: RFD: translated description with dpkg]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: RFD: translated description with dpkg
Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From: debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 03:26:25 -0400
From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
To: "Debian Liste (Dev)"
<debian-devel@lists.debian.org>,debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org
References: <[🔎] 20010829145651.B20468@home.debsupport.de>
<[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.30.0108290947150.7021-100000@tennyson.netexpress.net>
<[🔎] 20010829115853.A600@molehole.moregruel.net>
<[🔎] 20010829191830.H20781@wiggy.net>
<[🔎] 20010829151923.B338@molehole.moregruel.net>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 03:19:23PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 29-Aug-01, 12:18 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> wrote:
> > Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > I also think the standalone .deb argument is pretty bogus.
> >
> > I disagree. A standalone .deb should never be less useful to people then
> > one that is in some archive.
>
> How is it less useful?
>
> A standalone .deb w/o a Package file doesn't integrate into apt or
> dselect, so there's no where to show the descriptions. The only reason
> one would have an interest in such a .deb is that one already has a
> pretty good idea of what it is, presumably from an accompaning README,
> or the webpage with a link, or somesuch. I doubt very many people go
> around browsing random .debs with 'dpkg-deb -I'.
Who's to say that a more featureful frontend won't be able to deal with
individual .debs just as elegantly?
In the webpage-download scenario, I imagine it's pretty common for users
to
find software on pages that are (entirely or partially) not in their
native
language, and in that situation a translated description could be quite
useful.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
seems useful to me...i've had problems using dselect after installing
.deb files not from a debian mirror...g.b...
Reply to: