[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: identical extended descriptions

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 10:44:58PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >         Yes, it is a 5 word change in the Control file. Do you feel it
> >  is worth it? I don't thik it makes a meaningful distinction (It'll
> >  fool the md5sum check, though ;-).
> Heh. It wouldn't hurt, but it doesn't really matter.
> >  Joey> Maybe we don't need an amendment at all, since many of these
> >  Joey> packages could be said to be volating policy by not having a
> >  Joey> description that "tells the user what they need to know to
> >  Joey> decide whether to install the package".
> > 
> >         Sounds a fair statement to me. 
> Unless someone disagrees, I'll file 200 or so bug reports a few days from
> now.

   OK, I'll disagree.  :)  A great many of these are library packages and
their associated -dev packages.  I'd rather the message "You don't need to
select these" were put in the section description rather than the package
descriptions for library packages, and that the devel section get a
description along the lines "unless you're compiling programs yourself you
don't need any of these", and that both sections be folded by default.
   This is an implementation issue for dselect/*-apt/etc, not a policy
issue.  As we approach 5000 packages we need folding, tasks, deeper
hierarchies, etc far more than we need minor tweaks to package descriptions.


Reply to: