On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 07:02:18AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Description : a flexible open source Content Management System > > > If that's meant to become the package's short description, I'd > recommend: > > - dropping "open source". If the package is in Debian, it is free wrt > DFSG so that become sirrelevant > - dropping the leading article (discouraged by the developer's > reference) > - consider dropping "flexible" which is a matter of judgement whether > it really is > > That leaves you with "Content Managemenbt System" only, which you > might want to enhance to give information about what makes it special > among the gazillion other CMS (please note that I have no clue about > CMS....I just feel there are tons of these, which might even be > untrue..:-)) > Quite true, it's a little hard to come up with a sentence which explains why this one in particular should be used :) I think I'll need to consult with upstream about getting a better description. Thanks for your input on it. Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature