Re: RFS: dagger
Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org> writes:
> Stephan Windmüller <windy@white-hawk.de> wrote:
> >
> > I think it does not hurt, the description has a total length of
> > three lines for now. Also other packages (e.g. burn) also mention
> > the used programming language.
>
> Of course other packages do this, but it doesn't mean it is the right
> thing to do ;)
Agreed. If one's package description is poor, it's irrelevant to point
to other poor package descriptions.
> We have a really powerful tool, debtags, which can be used to
> describe various aspects of a package, from the programming language
> used to implement it, to the kind of files it is able to handle.
Do bear in mind that debtags is entirely optional, and we do not
require package interfaces to display debtags information at all.
> Putting any of the information which could be effectively described
> using tags in the short or long description is completely redundant,
> and as such should be avoided.
I wouldn't go this far. Since it's currently optional for the package
to have any debtags information at all, and it will (hopefully) remain
optional to display that information to users, the argument of whether
something should be in the package description should not rest on
whether it's possible to record the information as debtags.
Rather, I would say that the package synopsis and long description
should inform the user about what the package is, and how it's
different to other packages that might be similar: that is, briefly
give enough information to know whether the package is of interest
enough to either install or remove form the system.
--
\ “Here is a test to see if your mission on earth is finished. If |
`\ you are alive, it isn't.” —Francis Bacon |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: