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

Re: identical extended descriptions

>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <Drake.Diedrich@anu.edu.au> writes:

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

 Drake> *This* proposal is to file 200+ bug reports because the
 Drake> package descriptions don't duplicate information implicit in
 Drake> package names, package sections, and version numbers.  Before

        If I were Joey Hess, I would find that insulting. The very
 reason the bugs are being filed is that he believes the information
 is not implicit. I tend to agree.

 Drake> those 200 bug reports are filed I think policy section 2.3.3
 Drake> should be modified to state that implicit information must be
 Drake> duplicated in the description.

        Heh. Send in the proposal, then. See how far it flies.

 Drake> I think that duplication would be misplaced, since it's common
 Drake> to all section lib/ and -dev packages, and should instead be a
 Drake> wishlist/patch against dselect/*apt if it bugs Joey so much.

        And against less as well? People often do less
 /var/lib/dpkg/available to scrounge for known packages. 

 Drake> Pull your horns in Manoj.

        Pull in my horns? You have gall, thinking that you can get me
 to stop criticizing an objection I consider being on very weak
 technical grounds.  If you don't want criticism, make a stronger

 Drake> Joey followed standard practice before filing massive
 Drake> automated bug reports.

        Who the heck said automated reports?

 Drake> You've raised some objections.

        When did I object to Joey's suggestion to file reports?

 Drake> I've raised more objections.  From my perspective they're
 Drake> essentially the same objection (information necessary to
 Drake> decide whether to install a package is present in other
 Drake> control fields).

        In your opinion, libs == do not select. Unfortunately, that is
 not a reasonable assumption to make, and most users won't make that

        Come up with a stronger argument.

Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: