* "Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> (Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:45:48 +0000): > On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:13:11PM +0200, Fabian Pietsch wrote: > > filelight's package description is: > > > > | Allows you to exactly understand exactly your disk usage by graphically > > | representating your filesystem as a set of concentric segmented-rings. > So it should be: > > Allows you to understand your disk usage by graphically representing > your filesystem as a set of concentric, segmented rings. > > Note that a package description should probably use complete sentences, > in which case it should be: > > Filelight allows you to understand your disk usage by graphically > representing your filesystem as a set of concentric, segmented rings. > > HTH. Good, comprehensive review. :) But it would be pretentious against the maintainer to drop the "exactly" entirely, I'd think. Especially for this package brings aggregations of disk space to your attention which would easily be overlooked with normal "du" or with a naive graphical representation. You get an overview of what directories consume the most space, but also which files/directories in some sub-sub-... directory are most responsible for that, with mouse-hover context-sensitive textual annotation of the most heavy-weight of the current selection's children, and more... Err.. ok. (Perhaps it would be prudent to install and use a package before the final recommendation will be made, as a rule. :-S) Another thing: A lot of package descriptions would start with the package's name... That would be so redundant, and unattractive to read. Perhaps package descriptions shouldn't become too eloquent, or style-aligned. Different styles fit different packages, or even maintainers. And I've found the maintainer field to often be a useful indicator whether I would like a package or not, or even how to interpret the package description better. This would be lost with style-alignment, but perhaps the style wouldn't be so much aligned that interpretation based on the generalized style would be meaningful -- especially if the description would have been written/edited by someone who didn't actually use the package. Just my 2 cents... ;) -- Fabian "zzz" Pietsch - http://zzz.arara.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature