> So I also don't see any need to standardize such a warning in the package > descriptions. It would just be a lot of work that does not any real > value. Please note that this would happen during a review that already happens anyway (while we reviewn packages' debconf templates, we also review the packages' descriptions in debian/control). While, strictly speaking, the value added by a mention that a given package is a udeb is low, every package that produces a udeb includes a decription of that udeb in debian/control. This of course implies mentioning that the package is a ubde. So, indeed, the proposal is to make such descriptions consistent. From Steve and Frans comments, it is clear that it is not very interesting to explain things in detail. However, I still feel that a small comment like the one I proposed earlier is still worth it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature