I have caught-up the discussion on the topic of the short description
now. (I was not subscribed to debian-policy so I didn't follow the
discussion itself.) As the original bug-submitter I want to make
some final comments:
* I agree with most of Branden's proposal since it grants consistency
in
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 12:04:08PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
That wasn't addressed to me, but my reaction is the same as it was to
the original proposal: this doesn't belong in policy. It belongs in
dev-ref or the packaging manual, or some similar set of guidelines for
maintainers.
I yield
On 22-Aug-01, 12:30 (CDT), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find this assertion in tension with the one you make later that the
one line description should be targetted at people who _don't_ have any
idea what the package is. Why would such people know what HTTP
stands for?
I
Chris Waters wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, if I downgrade my must not's to should not's, would you second
the proposal?
I'm not sure, I have a terrific mail backlog and skimmed your proposal.
Chris makes some good points too, in the parts of
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:05:59PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
I guess it says something for policy not needing to be used as a stick;
a mere 'should' has clearly sufficed.
Branden Well, if I downgrade my must not's to should not's,
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 11:03:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Have you asked yourself whether this really needs a policy
dictum? (It does not, in my opinion. Recommended practice suggestions
ought to go into the developers reference; not policy).
Is the Developers' Reference
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden Is the Developers' Reference presently maintained?
I would so assume. The maintainer, Adam Di Carlo, is fairly
active, and I would think that any proposed additions would be
incorporated. He has been releasing the reference
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:05:59PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
I guess it says something for policy not needing to be used as a stick;
a mere 'should' has clearly sufficed.
Well, if I downgrade my must not's to should not's, would you second
the proposal?
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, if I downgrade my must not's to should not's, would you second
the proposal?
That wasn't addressed to me, but my reaction is the same as it was to
the original proposal: this doesn't belong in policy. It belongs in
Branden Robinson wrote:
Since you're fond of statistics, here are some for woody/main/i386:
$ grep '^Description:' Packages | wc -l
6126
$ grep '^Description:' Packages | sort | uniq | wc -l
5848
$ grep '^Description:' Packages | fold -w 93 | wc -l
6126
Unsuprising, since policy
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:17:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
However, we need to understand that some maintainers are quite enamored
of their crap descriptions and will not change them without the weight
of policy bearing down.
This doesn't strike me as true, and even if it is, it's not
Hi,
Sebastian == Sebastian Rittau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sebastian Currently, most package start the short package
Sebastian description with a capital letter, but some don't. Also,
Sebastian some short descriptions end with a period, some don't. I
Sebastian think, policy state, what is
(Sorry to come in late and revive this; I was out of town.)
Since there doesn't seem to be consensus on this topic, I thought I'd
weigh in with my opinion (worth every cent you paid for it). I like most
of Branden's proposals/points/guidelines, but none[1] of them belong in
policy. This is the
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about consistency.
Hmm...
It should probably be about cramming as much information as possible into
a single line. On that note: requiring the first letter be capitalized
loses 1 bit of
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 07:58:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
they're absolutely,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 07:58:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
they're absolutely,
[I realize there are few things more important to you than to have my
personal feedback on these issues, but please do not CC me on messages
to mailing lists, including mail to debian-policy bugs; I read the
debian-policy list.]
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 12:00:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
So the
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden gcc - The GNU C compiler. gcc-2.95 - The GNU C compiler.
Branden gcc-3.0 - The GNU C compiler. gcc272 - The GNU C
Branden compiler.
Branden IMO, there is room here for just a little bit of
Branden clarification.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:45:07PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Is it really required to duplicate the information already present
under the Version and Package field in the description field?
Well, no, that's not what I'm asking for at all.
Perhaps a better approach, if the descriptions must be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gcc - The GNU C compiler.
gcc-2.95 - The GNU C compiler.
gcc-3.0 - The GNU C compiler.
gcc272 - The GNU C compiler.
IMO, there is room here for just a little bit of clarification.
*nod*
--
Marcelo | She'd even given herself a
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:01:15AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:45:07PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Perhaps a better approach, if the descriptions must be different,
would be to add something like (obsolete version), (current version),
(newly released version), (beta
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 06:56:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
A package's short description should:
* fit on an 80-character line within the control file (so that the
package name and description together take up less than 80
characters)
* typically be written in a form that
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
A question--
suppose you were packaging a database adapter
python-popy: database adapter
What's a database adapter? That's not at all clear to me as a lay
person. At a first guess, I'd have assumed it was something special in
some way,
[Do not CC me on messages to mailing lists, including mail to
debian-policy bugs; I read the debian-policy list.]
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
A question--
suppose you were packaging a database adapter
python-popy: database adapter
Seems a bit light.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I would guess that the broader context is what is meant in most package
descriptions (and certainly this one), but this is a call that has to be
made by the package maintainer. This is why I recommended shoulds
for most
,
on Bug#108416: Format of short description should be mandated,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are some suggestions to get the ball rolling:
A package's short description should:
* fit on an 80-character line within the control file (so that the
package name
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
they're absolutely, unambiguously in the wrong.
Where did I say package descriptions
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, most package start the short package description with a
capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
with a period, some don't. I think, policy state, what is correct.
(I would prefer capital letter and
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, most package start the short package description with a
capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
with a period, some don't. I
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 10:52:55PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
I also think that that short description should be as close as possible
to a real sentence.
Agreed. Thatswhy I prefer the period. :)
I strongly disagree. Most
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, most package start the short package description with a
capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
with a period, some don't. I
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, most package start the short package description with a
capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
with a period, some don't. I
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:17:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Package: foo-ed
Description: editor for foo files
What's wrong with:
Description: Editor for foo files
? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:17:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 10:52:55PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
I also think that that short description should be as close as possible
to a real sentence.
34 matches
Mail list logo
