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

Re: identical extended descriptions

Drake Diedrich wrote:
>    *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.

So, since one can *clearly* tell exactly what a package is by simply
reading the package name, all descriptions are completly irrevelant and
might as well be removed.

Fine. Go make a proposal to that end. As it is, you're spewing nonsense
that is not backed up by policy.

> I think that duplication
> would be misplaced, since it's common to all section lib/ and -dev packages,

No it isn't. It's common to lib and dev packages with lazy maintainers.
None of *my* lib and dev packages have this problem. Nor do a small
majority of lib and dev packages.

>   Pull your horns in Manoj.  Joey followed standard practice before filing
> massive automated bug reports.  You've raised some objections. 

Manoj raised no objections to me filing bug reports.

see shy jo

Reply to: