On 2013-04-17, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2013-04-16, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>>> I almost made this bug report just asking for the package
>>>> description on top before remembering that was not possible
>>>
>>> We could actually do that for single-binary source packages - just
>>> take the description from the unstable version of the single binary
>>> package.
>>
>> That would be pretty cool.
>
> Added, until the next cron job, you can see that in action on these two pages:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/iotop.html
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/warzone2100.html
>
> It is based on two heuristics:
>
> If there is only one binary package, the source package gets the same
> description.
>
> If there is a binary package with the same name as the source package,
> the source package gets the same description as it.
>
> If you have any ideas for more heuristics, please let me know.
>
> Here are a couple from IRC, thoughts?
>
> <themill> source package foo has binary package libfooX?
> <pabs> hmm, I wonder which of libfooX or libfoo-dev is generally the
> better synopsis
> <themill> pruning off " - .+" at the end of the description when
> there's more than one binary package?
I wouldn't bother with too complicated heuristics here. I like your
basic idea, we could even look at the first description in
debian/control...
>> Make it visible more clearly, maybe a <small> line below the link?
>
> Hmm, I think for source packages with lots of binary packages this
> could be problematic. I've implemented a compromise, if there are less
> than 5 binary packages then the descriptions get shown, examples until
> the cron job runs:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/iotop.html
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/warzone2100.html
Cool. I don't see a problem with having descriptions beyond 5 packages,
but I don't object to the compromise.
>> Way I see it, this could be smack in the middle of the page, either on
>> top (if we really want to make this a homepage) or at the bottom (if we
>> want to keep the PTS dev-specific) of the middle pane.
>
> Hmm, I think this is a bit more problematic, the PTS is already pretty
> space-starved.
really? The whole thing fits in a single window pane for me here on most
packages, adding a little blurb wouldn't hurt too much.. ;)
Here's an example with the description on top:
http://paste.anarcat.ath.cx/iotop.html
... and on the side:
http://paste.anarcat.ath.cx/iotop-side.html
... which makes me think: maybe that could be a collapsible pop-up or
something - here's something with <abbrev>:
http://paste.anarcat.ath.cx/iotop-abbrev.html
>> For example, my use case is for technical documentation, where as a
>> system administrator I want to have an HTTP link to a "debian
>> package". Linking to the p.d.o page in sid /could/ work, but will break
>> once it is removed from sid (if ever) for example, while the PTS page
>> sticks around. Also, as you said, the p.d.o is for "users" (I am
>> thinking of a desktop user here), not "administrators" (like me,
>> regardless of the fact that I'm also a DD).
>
> I generally class "administrators" as "users" too.
I agree they are also "users", but I think it's a good idea to
distinguish between them.
Thanks for the improvements!
--
It is better to sit alone than in company with the bad; and it is better
still to sit with the good than alone. It better to speak to a seeker of
knowledge than to remain silent; but silence is better than idle words.
- Imam Bukhari
Attachment:
pgpCGR0tgID67.pgp
Description: PGP signature