[John Hasler]
So I'd suggest concentrating on the 3% of packages non-technical users
might actually want to select manually, and making sure those have
legible and searchable descriptions.
Technical users don't deserve legible and searchable descriptions?
I meant legible and searchable
Peter Samuelson writes:
I meant legible and searchable to ignorant people.
Everyone is ignorant in some areas. Many intelligent and highly skilled
people know little about programming.
It should go without saying that all package descriptions should be
legible and searchable for their
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:51:11 -0700, Dustin Harriman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Wouldn't it make sense that debtags and Package Descriptions not do
redundant work of each other?
But Debtags information is not yet integrated into the
package selection front-ends, like the description is.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:16:23 +0200, Benjamin Mesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Especially details like written in C++ should be left to the
debtags system as there is no use for the end user.
I am a potential end user for the vast majority of packages in
Debian -- as I am for the vast
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:08:22 -0500, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Peter Samuelson writes:
There is no need for dumbing down descriptions for things
non-technical users aren't going to be selecting anyway.
One can be a highly technical user of a package without knowing (or
caring)
Hello,
If the debtags also get searched when she does a simple search, then
great. This will depend on how seamlessly debtags get integrated into
package managers (like Synaptic's) search facilities (for example, a
simple search by default, then an Advanced button to expand the search
[Dustin Harriman]
1) Package descriptions should tend towards readers like grandma by
default (ie. are as general as possible by default), and
What about the majority of packages in Debian? You know, the ones your
hypothetical ancestor would never wish to install explicitly, under any
Peter Samuelson writes:
There is no need for dumbing down descriptions for things non-technical
users aren't going to be selecting anyway.
One can be a highly technical user of a package without knowing (or caring)
squat about the language it is implemented in. Descriptions should focus
on the
Hello,
I agree with you, that the documentation review team should have the
debtags approach in mind. Also debtags-edit being able to edit
descriptions would be desirable - however someone would need to
implement this, and Enrico is very busy ;-). Being able to edit the
package information in
Benjamin Mesing wrote:
However I have to say that I disagree with you in some points. You are
correct, that the package description should be as non technical as
possbile, without underminining the usefullness of it.
Yes, I agree. Instead of the absolutes I proposed, perhaps it still
makes
Hi all,
Debtags shows great promise in covering the technical aspect of
describing Debian packages. Debtags do a better job than Package
Descriptions when it comes to precisely describing a package in a
highly-technical, highly-searchable format (that is fully geek compliant).
Wouldn't it
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:02:21 +0200, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 7/21/05, Thaddeus H. Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see another side to it, however. At least seven reasons occur to
me why a user might care what language a program is written in.
A 'normal' user doesn't
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:08:43 -0300, Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 19:58 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
nstead of putting it in the first sentence, the second paragraph
would be a fine place to mention details like this, satisfying both
novice and advanced users.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A 'normal' user doesn't know what C, C++ and Perl are.
The user I am creating packages for does. I am not really
that interested in working for user who do not know the distinction,
personally speaking.
So your personal target user might
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:33:32 -0300, Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
2. Programs written in obscure languages may prove unmaintainable
if
the original developer disappears. Besides threatening
obsolescence, this can be a security issue.
You've furnished a reason *not* to put the
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:32:50 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A 'normal' user doesn't know what C, C++ and Perl are.
The user I am creating packages for does. I am not really that
interested in working for user who do not
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 01:21 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Because that information is not presented to me in aptitude,
one of the preferred front ends to package management. Once the deb
tags system gets integrated into the front ends, the long description
can stop shouldering
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:58:34 -0300, Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 01:21 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Because that information is not presented to me in aptitude, one of
the preferred front ends to package management. Once the deb tags
system gets integrated
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:30:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:33:32 -0300, Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
2. Programs written in obscure languages may prove unmaintainable
if the original developer disappears. Besides threatening
obsolescence, this
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 08:48:46PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
Foo is a Perl-based program that...
libBar is written in C...
libBang is written in only 42 lines of source code...
Baz has been written by me...
Do such descriptions justify bug
On 7/21/05, Thaddeus H. Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see another side to it, however. At least seven reasons occur to me
why a user might care what language a program is written in.
A 'normal' user doesn't know what C, C++ and Perl are.
Hello,
I started a page on the Debian wiki for this project
http://wiki.debian.net/?PackagesDescriptionsReview
Feel free to edit any part of it.
If everyone agrees, I intend to add some thoughts about the organization
details we could set up (code to track the work and ease the work of the
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:45:55PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
4. With a language come a mindset, an aesthetic and a development
culture. Although one cannot speak in absolutes, generally speaking,
which program would you expect to be more focused and reliable: a
program written in C++
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
I see another side to it, however. At least seven reasons occur to me
why a user might care what language a program is written in.
1. Compiled programs (C, C++, Fortran 77, Ada, ...) usually run leaner
and faster than do interpreted ones (Perl,
Jon Dowland writes:
I think you are expecting people to say C++, and on the other hand, Perl:
However, I think perl for both :-)
I agree.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 13:45 +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
1. Compiled programs (C, C++, Fortran 77, Ada, ...) usually run leaner
and faster than do interpreted ones (Perl, Python, Ruby, ...).
In general, algorithm choice is much more important than language.
Also, the language the main
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 13:45 +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
Hence the language in which a program is
implemented is somewhat relevant, at least to me.
The conclusion is clear: the programming language is relevant to some
users, but not to others (who are presumed to be large in quantity). So
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 19:58 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
nstead of putting it in the first sentence, the second paragraph would
be a fine place to mention details like this, satisfying both novice and
advanced users.
But why bother, when debtags does implemented-in does the job better?
Extra
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 18:13 +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
I think one reason could be that some poeple would rather
install a programm in a language they know and they are able
to debug. Just a guess.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 01:41:31PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Debtags facets[0] are better
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 02:47:22PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 20-Jul-05, 10:47 (CDT), W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what do you think about the usefulness of technical (and other
strange) details in package description?
While mostly agreeing with the other comments (libbar
Hi,
* W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-20 18:08]:
what do you think about the usefulness of technical (and other
strange) details in package description? I think, those are
annoying and should be avoided, but maybe I can learn, why they
are useful. Examples:
Foo is a Perl-based
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 18:13 +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
[...]
I think one reason could be that some poeple would rather
install a programm in a language they know and they are able
to debug. Just a guess.
Debtags facets[0] are better for this. Descriptions are supposed to
help *ordinary* users
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 06:13:22PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
I think one reason could be that some poeple would rather
install a programm in a language they know and they are able
to debug. Just a guess.
You might want to look into the implemented-in debtags facet instead, then;
it's probably
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 08:47 am, W. Borgert wrote:
Do such descriptions justify bug reports of severity=minor?
Yes, with perhaps one exception:
libBar is written in C...
This is almost a sensible start to a description, since the language of
implementation actually matters for a
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
Foo is a Perl-based program that...
libBar is written in C...
libBang is written in only 42 lines of source code...
Baz has been written by me...
Do such descriptions justify bug reports of severity=minor?
Well, I would guess wishlist is the right way
On 20-Jul-05, 10:47 (CDT), W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what do you think about the usefulness of technical (and other
strange) details in package description?
While mostly agreeing with the other comments (libbar is a C library
is useful/appropriate; foo is a perl program is not.),
ke, 2005-07-20 kello 14:47 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
While mostly agreeing with the other comments (libbar is a C library
is useful/appropriate; foo is a perl program is not.), I'd guess
this is a symptom of a more general problem: far too many package
descriptions are taken verbatim
Hello
Maybe it would be worthwhile to
have a weekend, similar to a bug squashing party, where all descriptions
are proofread and for those that need it, a proposed new description
filed as a wishlist bug?
Given 15000 packages, and 20 volunteers, and on average two minutes per
description
On 20-Jul-05, 15:18 (CDT), Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ke, 2005-07-20 kello 14:47 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
Given 15000 packages, and 20 volunteers, and on average two minutes per
description (given that most descriptions probably only need little or
no tweaking), this
Hello Steve,
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 05:25:35PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
I think 2 min/pkg for *spotting* problems is reasonable, but not nearly
enough for fixing them. Decent writing is non-trivial.
Especially for cases like where some research is necessary to find out
what the package
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:12:41AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
Especially for cases like where some research is necessary to find out
what the package actually does. Some randomly chosen examples where
the function of the package is not clear to me from reading the
description:
I looked
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
But however long it takes, some concerted effort should be able
to improve things a lot. I would be interested to help with this.
Just file bugs for the above descriptions, I do that also if i find a
description to confusing. Since we have no central
42 matches
Mail list logo
