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

Bug#108416: Format of short description should be mandated



[I realize there are few things more important to you than to have my
personal feedback on these issues, but please do not CC me on messages
to mailing lists, including mail to debian-policy bugs; I read the
debian-policy list.]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 12:00:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> So the description for gcc-2.95 is not the same as the one for gcc-3.0?
> Likewise for shared library's of differing soversions?

I don't see why they cannot or should not be different.  Users might
wonder why they are both present.  While this can be explained at length
in the extended description, it can't hurt to put a minimal explanation
in the short description if one will fit.

E.g., here's what I do:

Description: X Athena widget set library (version 6)
Description: X Athena widget set library (version 6) (unstripped)
Description: X Athena widget set library
Description: X Athena widget set library (unstripped)

Instead of "version 6", I might say "old version", "obsolete version",
"deprecated version", etc.  You get the idea.  Anything to give the user
just a little bit of a hint which one they might want in the event
they're presented with a choice.

gcc - The GNU C compiler.
gcc-2.95 - The GNU C compiler.
gcc-3.0 - The GNU C compiler.
gcc272 - The GNU C compiler.

IMO, there is room here for just a little bit of clarification.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      It doesn't matter what you are
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      doing, emacs is always overkill.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Stephen J. Carpenter
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpl9NUI8no87.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: