Send Mageia-discuss mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Mageia-discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Suggestions (Marc Par?)
2. Re: Suggestions (Ahmad Samir)
3. Re: Suggestions (Luca Berra)
4. Re: network balancing by default (Luca Berra)
5. Re: network balancing by default (Maarten Vanraes)
6. Re: network balancing by default (Maarten Vanraes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:31:21 -0400
From: Marc Par?<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Mageia-discuss] Suggestions
Message-ID:<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Le 2010-10-25 00:12, Kira a ?crit :
? Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:59:25 +0800, Marc Par?<[email protected]>??:
I think that it is pretty clear that packagers don't really want to
deal with updating description, but the users would like to have
updated descriptions. So, what if there was a group of users in charge
of updating the package descriptions/translations where needed? Would
this work?
The problem is that currently if we want to translate the description, then
we have to modify the SPEC of the RPM, which can only be done with
packager.
Like the previous messages, we have 2 methods to choose:
1 .po files for 1 package
or
1 .po files for multiple packages
The first one would cause many .po files to maintain, while the other
cause the maintainence hard( too complicate).
====
I think maybe a more aggresive way is better:
Make the detailed description available only for programs, not packages.
Currently the RPMDRAKE is packages based, which is hard for newbies to find
programs they need and the amount of the description need to maintain
also scares
everyone off.
The "Programs with GUI" option is the first step, but I think we should
step further,
let people install programs, not packages. Therefore, we can ease both
the difficulty
of maintain descriptions and installation harsh.
Ah! I guess my choice of words. I am still finding my way around the
jargon. I would have meant all of this for software. Yes. This would all
make sense.
I agree with you. And as stated earlier, often the description has been
updated on the programme's website and there is little fiddling around
to include it.
I also believe that we should try to help the devs as much as possible
and make their work as much as "developer" by nature as possible. We can
take care of the more mundane tasks for them. Let's let them code to
their heart's delight and we will just gain more from their hard and
generous work. Just as they will with us.
BTW, in my opinion, the default GUI setting in the MCC was not a right
choice. It excluded too many pieces of software for users. I usually
recommended people to select the "All" setting, and from there to search
for the ideal programme. There are just not enough GUI packages in the
repos to make it fun in that particular sections. Everything should be
available to the user.
Marc
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:42:49 +0200
From: Ahmad Samir<[email protected]>
To: Mageia general discussions<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Mageia-discuss] Suggestions
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 25 October 2010 02:19, Wayne Sallee<[email protected]> wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote on 10/23/2010 08:52 PM:
Le dimanche 24 octobre 2010 ? ?02:09 +0200, Tux99 a ??crit :
Come on... the effort of adding a decent description is minimal for a
packager, the effort for a normal user of making a patch is much
higher, this is not a very friendly answer towards the users...
I think I demonstrated in the past that constant friendliness toward
users is not one of my distinctive characteristics.
The patch arguent is invalid, because people can also send mail, like
"here is a better description of package $FOO because I didn't
understood the current one and I wanted to help".
So while sending a email and finding the packager email can be hard for
some people, I doubt that sending a email is hard for everybody.
If writing a decent description is easy and almost effortless, and if
sending a email is easy, then what is difficult into doing both ?
I agree that it is only logical to contribute by e-mailing the packager
about an improvement need in the package, but some packagers don't want you
e-mailing them about their package.
As a community distro, we want to try to make it comfortable and easy for
everyone to get involved.
Knowing that many packagers are not going to want you e-mailing them about
their package, reduces the number of people that will take the time to
e-mail them with such contribution. Of course what makes it easier for one,
makes it harder for another, so there needs to be balance there. Sometimes
our expectations are expecting too much from the other who is working a lot
of thankless hours to keep the distro going.
It's all about balance and efficiency, and making it easy for people to
start contributing, and realizing that some jobs are more time consuming
than we might think.
Developing systems and protocols help keep things running efficient, and
moving forward.
Wayne Sallee
[email protected]
Yes, using bugzilla is usually better; an advantage of filing a bug
report over sending a personal email is that the bug gets more
exposure and any packager who has a bit of free time and can fix it
(especially if you're talking about just changing the package
description) will do so; i.e. the whole process becomes faster by
distributing the workload (especially not-too-invasive package
changes).
