Re: Craig Small in <20050912021426.GD13471@enc.com.au> > > > IMO, the description should be about the application, it shouldn't > > > be a comparative. > > > > Agreed. I'd say rather that enough information about the application > > should be included so that the reader can make their own comparison. > > You can do both. If your package has feature "flaming unicycles" while > package foo does not, just mention that feature, but no need to mention > that foo doesn't have it. > > Putting it another way. You are a user and you want a web calendar > thingy? Which package satisfies your requirements better? Obviously > there is only so much a package description can do. The good thing about Debian is choice. The bad thing about Debian is choice. I always like it very much when a package description says "this package supports A (but not B), whereas the bla package supports B (and only an outdated version of A)". Given 3 packages A, B, and C, and A says that "it supports blubb, which B does not", I usually prefer A over B and C, whatever the value of "blubb" is ;-) Christoph -- cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature