Re: RFS: mpg321 (updated package)
Comparisons like “clone of foopackage, but different” aren't very
helpful in the synopsis. (They are fine in the long description though.)
I found it with that description, and seems that was long time.
But if description is not appropriate, So I can change it
Better would be to spend the limited synopsis space to say what the
package *is*, rather than what it is like or what it is not. In the
synopsis it's okay to be similar to other packages; the long description
can be used for distinctions.
Ok, I will take it into account. But first I would like first, the upstream author's opinion or some mentor.
I think may be: popular command-line mp3
(according to: http://mpg321.sourceforge.net/
Thanks so much, Ben