Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:

    Paul> Hi all, I have noticed that almost all Rust packages in Debian
    Paul> have boilerplate long descriptions that aren't very useful to
    Paul> Debian users. The only useful info is the crate name, but that
    Paul> is also in the package name.
    Paul> Having the Rust team and other folks add non-upstream
    Paul> descriptions for crates seems like not very useful work, since
    Paul> the Rust packages are basically only used as build-deps and
    Paul> therefore have no human users.

I find the value of Debian mirrors/package repositories to be a
cross-language list of tools that are available to be incredibly useful,
and so I would be against relaxing our description requirements.

I also  run in environments where I have Debian mirrors available but no
other network resources, and so the set of rust crates available in
Debian is a very interesting subset for me.