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

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: