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

Re: identical extended descriptions

On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         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''? 

   Rhetorical - we do have section "libs", none of which need to be selected
manually in the vast majority of cases.

>         That is implicit by the -dev addition that the packages have,
>  Adding descriptions to the sections is fine (though redundant)
>         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. 

   *This* proposal is to file 200+ bug reports because the package
descriptions don't duplicate information implicit in package names, package
sections, and version numbers.  Before those 200 bug reports are filed I
think policy section 2.3.3 should be modified to state that implicit
information must be duplicated in the description.  I think that duplication
would be misplaced, since it's common to all section lib/ and -dev packages,
and should instead be a wishlist/patch against dselect/*apt if it bugs Joey
so much.

  Pull your horns in Manoj.  Joey followed standard practice before filing
massive automated bug reports.  You've raised some objections.  I've raised
more objections.  From my perspective they're essentially the same objection
(information necessary to decide whether to install a package is present in
other control fields).

Reply to: