On 17.06.2016, at 10:25, Patrick Matthäi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 14.06.2016 um 12:46 schrieb Andreas Beckmann: >> On 2016-06-14 12:25, Nikolas Grottendieck wrote: >>> It appears you are correct and I just didn’t understand/read the package >>> descriptions correctly … my bad. >>> To prevent further misunderstandings would it be possible to update the >>> geoip-database-contrib package description and improve the wording? >> ... >> >> That certainly should be done. Retitling the bug accordingly and >> lowering the severity. >> >> >> Andreas >> > > Hi, > > for myself the description is good enough: "This package contains a > script that downloads the latest version of the binary" > I do not have got a better idea to re-word the long description (maybe a > native speaker could help here better). Maybe someone has got a patch > for me with an improved description? > > Patrick Matthäi >
Hi, yes, that part of the description most certainly is good enough. However, my (and apparently other’s) confusion stems from the lack of a clear indication that this package can be used as a substitute for geoip-database and geoip-database-extra as opposed to a complementary package. I think it would suffice if the -extra package description had a sentence along the lines of “This package can be used as a replacement for the packages geoip-database and geoip-database-extra. Additionally, this package contains a script that regularly downloads the latest version of the binary […]” in addition to the current contents of the description currently available. Best regards, Nikolas
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
