Re: identical extended descriptions
>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <Drake.Diedrich@anu.edu.au> writes:
Drake> OK, I'll disagree. :) A great many of these are library
Drake> packages and their associated -dev packages. I'd rather the
Drake> message "You don't need to select these" were put in the
Huh? Why do we have a whole section of things people need not
select? And why do you think the distinction between a library
package and the corresponding -dev pacjage is ``do not select''?
I would rather have the descritpions say this is the run time
library, and this package is the development one, in the man page,
since the distinction is usage!!
This is oppsed to kernel-image-blah packages, *all of which
provide kernel images, with just a version difference.
Drake> section description rather than the package descriptions for
Drake> library packages, and that the devel section get a description
Drake> along the lines "unless you're compiling programs yourself you
Drake> don't need any of these", and that both sections be folded by
That is implicit by the -dev addition that the packages have,
Adding descriptions to the sections is fine (though redundant)
Drake> This is an implementation issue for dselect/*-apt/etc, not a
Drake> policy issue. As we approach 5000 packages we need folding,
Drake> tasks, deeper hierarchies, etc far more than we need minor
Drake> tweaks to package descriptions.
That is orthogonal to this suggestion. Just because a lot of
work needs be done in another area is no excuse to neglect this one.
As it stands, distinct packages should offer clues to their
differences, if the differences are more than just version
numbering. I would rahter have both, not an either or
solution. Create your owen proposal for section docs, don't try to
impede this proposal.
Can you MAIL a BEAN CAKE?
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C