On 2013-04-17, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> On 2013-04-16, Paul Wise wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >>>> I almost made this bug report just asking for the package >>>> description on top before remembering that was not possible >>> >>> We could actually do that for single-binary source packages - just >>> take the description from the unstable version of the single binary >>> package. >> >> That would be pretty cool. > > Added, until the next cron job, you can see that in action on these two pages: > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/iotop.html > http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/warzone2100.html > > It is based on two heuristics: > > If there is only one binary package, the source package gets the same > description. > > If there is a binary package with the same name as the source package, > the source package gets the same description as it. > > If you have any ideas for more heuristics, please let me know. > > Here are a couple from IRC, thoughts? > > <themill> source package foo has binary package libfooX? > <pabs> hmm, I wonder which of libfooX or libfoo-dev is generally the > better synopsis > <themill> pruning off " - .+" at the end of the description when > there's more than one binary package?
I wouldn't bother with too complicated heuristics here. I like your basic idea, we could even look at the first description in debian/control... >> Make it visible more clearly, maybe a <small> line below the link? > > Hmm, I think for source packages with lots of binary packages this > could be problematic. I've implemented a compromise, if there are less > than 5 binary packages then the descriptions get shown, examples until > the cron job runs: > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/iotop.html > http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/warzone2100.html Cool. I don't see a problem with having descriptions beyond 5 packages, but I don't object to the compromise. >> Way I see it, this could be smack in the middle of the page, either on >> top (if we really want to make this a homepage) or at the bottom (if we >> want to keep the PTS dev-specific) of the middle pane. > > Hmm, I think this is a bit more problematic, the PTS is already pretty > space-starved. really? The whole thing fits in a single window pane for me here on most packages, adding a little blurb wouldn't hurt too much.. ;) Here's an example with the description on top: http://paste.anarcat.ath.cx/iotop.html ... and on the side: http://paste.anarcat.ath.cx/iotop-side.html ... which makes me think: maybe that could be a collapsible pop-up or something - here's something with <abbrev>: http://paste.anarcat.ath.cx/iotop-abbrev.html >> For example, my use case is for technical documentation, where as a >> system administrator I want to have an HTTP link to a "debian >> package". Linking to the p.d.o page in sid /could/ work, but will break >> once it is removed from sid (if ever) for example, while the PTS page >> sticks around. Also, as you said, the p.d.o is for "users" (I am >> thinking of a desktop user here), not "administrators" (like me, >> regardless of the fact that I'm also a DD). > > I generally class "administrators" as "users" too. I agree they are also "users", but I think it's a good idea to distinguish between them. Thanks for the improvements! -- It is better to sit alone than in company with the bad; and it is better still to sit with the good than alone. It better to speak to a seeker of knowledge than to remain silent; but silence is better than idle words. - Imam Bukhari
pgp_6gcmqCucj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
