On 5/18/11 11:51 AM, Alex Dupre wrote: > Joe Marcus Clarke ha scritto: >> That makes sense, but given that we have other tools and sites that >> provide port information, is it better to recommend the shorter COMMENT >> that may not be sufficient to give a port intro, or should we opt for a >> slightly longer string? How will pkgng handle this? > > Read it in this way: is it better to have a useless pkg_info COMMENT > because it's truncated, or a nicer web page displaying ten additional > characters and probably a link to the pkg-descr? IMHO if you are looking > for a detailed description you have to look at pkg-descr in any way, 70 > chars instead of 60 don't make a difference, but a truncated comment is > like a 0-chars comment. This is my opinion of course. >
Yes, a detailed description requires pkg-descr regardless. However, I have frequently used those extra 10 characters to provide a meaningful COMMENT. Such a COMMENT may entice me to read pkg-descr. It sounds like pkgng is going to be structured so that the COMMENT length won't matter. IF that is the case, I'm inclined to leave the 70 char recommendation as-is since, again, people have been basing COMMENT on portlint. Joe -- Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: [email protected] FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
