On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le dimanche 24 octobre 2010 à 00:59 +0200, Tux99 a écrit :
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Dale Huckeby wrote:
One problem in choosing packages is that for many a description of what
the app does is sparse or nonexistent. And often the description is of
the form: defoliant_2.35.rpm. Install this if you need a defoliant. When
I see descriptions like this my first impulse is to wonder, Why did you
even bother? Complete descriptions of what each app does, including
explaining under what circumstances the user might or might not need it,
would go a long way towards making noobies feel less lost. Some apps do
an admirable job of explanation. Many don't.
I 100% agree with that and this is something that the packagers really
should do. What's the point in packaging up a great useful app, but then
saving time on the description so nobody but a few insiders use it,
because nobody know what it is for?
Even I still come across packages I have never heard of and then wonder
what they are for, immagine a newbie who doesn't really know any of the
Linux apps by name.
Well, writing better description is a task that do not requires
technical knowledge, and that any packagers could do, if people send a
patch.
Since I never received anything for my own packages for this kind of
problem, shall I assume that my packages are fine ?
Since I don't have technical knowledge but do like writing descriptions
that might be something I could do. But I don't know how to "send a
patch", unless by that you simply mean including in an email the text
of the description. Your packages probably are fine, but like many
nontechnical users I don't have much idea who maintains which packages.
Dale Huckeby
