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

Bug#108416: Format of short description should be mandated

On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:17:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:

> > Package: foo-ed
> > Description: editor for foo files

> What's wrong with:

> Description: Editor for foo files

> ? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about consistency.

Well, on the one hand, consistency is probably easier to achieve if we
stick to pre-existing and widely-known rules such as English grammar.
On the other hand, a quick scan of existing packages suggests that
knowledge of grammar is not widespread amongst Debian maintainers!

On the gripping hand, consistency is frequently overrated (c.f.
Emerson).  I still think the whole thing is making a mountain out of a
molehill.  Of course, a quick scan of *my* packages will reveal little
or no consistency in this matter, so my opinions may be suspect (:-))
but I think that a mandate would be serious overkill.  Let's stick to
guidelines, and those who really care about such matters can feel free
to file wishlist bugs against packages that offend their delicate

Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

Reply to: