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

Bug#108416: Format of short description should be mandated



On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:45:07PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Is it really required to duplicate the information already present
> under the Version and Package field in the description field?

Well, no, that's not what I'm asking for at all.

> Perhaps a better approach, if the descriptions must be different,
> would be to add something like (obsolete version), (current version),
> (newly released version), (beta version), (alpha version), or
> (dangerous version) instead.

Exactly.  Of what use is saying "this is gcc 2.95; that's gcc 3.0, and
over there is gcc 2.7.2" to people who don't already know the
significance of those releases?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      If encryption is outlawed, only
branden@debian.org                 |      outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpMDRzVp5NeG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: