Re: identical extended descriptions
>>>>> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Arguably, the description of these packages should *not* be
>>> different, seeing how close they are in packaging.
Joey> Right, I don't have a problem with that. People tend to know
Joey> what kernel versions mean. (Though it would be easy enough
Joey> to stick the kernel version number into the descriptions
Joey> too.)
Manoj> Yes, it is a 5 word change in the Control file. Do
Manoj> you feel it is worth it? I don't thik it makes a meaningful
Manoj> distinction (It'll fool the md5sum check, though ;-).
Perhaps if the kernel version was included in the short description,
then I wouldn't have this problem:
ii kernel-image-2 snoopy.1.1 Linux kernel binary image.
ii kernel-image-2 snoopy.3 Linux kernel binary image.
What upstream version is that?
Then again, I do realize this thread was talking about the extended
descriptions, not the short description... (also, it could be argued
that this is not the best solution). While I seem to remember that
alternatives to the dpkg -l command exist, the dpkg -l command is the
only one I ever remember when I need it.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: