Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)

Hi Praveen, On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:16:37AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Hi Praveen, > > I assume that all these ITPs are prompted by your crowd-funding effort. > > Today we have #850399 which plumbs new depths in that it has had both > long and short descriptions trimmed from the body of

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)

Hi Praveen, I assume that all these ITPs are prompted by your crowd-funding effort. Today we have #850399 which plumbs new depths in that it has had both long and short descriptions trimmed from the body of the message. Please would you take responsibility for your packaging team by instructing

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)

Christian Seiler writes: > On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16) >>> Vast majority of users would only install this via dependencies. It's >>> hardly a node-specific problem that debian package searches output >>> large