Adam Borowski writes ("Re: length of a package extended description"):
> Some data: count of packages with descs of a given length:
...Here's Adam's data with cumulative package count, and cumulative percentage: > 1- 4 13772 13772 30% > 5- 9 21324 35096 77% > 10- 14 6531 41627 91% > 15- 19 2433 44060 96% > 20- 24 872 44932 98% > 25- 29 288 45220 99% > 30- 39 175 45395 99% > 40- 49 42 45437 99% > 50- 59 19 45456 99% > 60- 69 13 45469 99% > 70- 79 5 45474 99% > 80- 89 7 45481 99% > 90- 89 3 45484 99% > 100 1 45485 99% > 110-119 7 45492 99% > 120-150 3 45495 99% > 151-199 4 45499 99% > 203 1 45500 99% > 257 1 45501 99% > 277 1 45502 99% > 325 1 45503 99% > 350 1 45504 99% > 437 1 45505 99% > 1935 1 45506 100% Of course as maintainers we all have a natural tendency to think our own package is more important and interesting than other packages. That kind of comes with the territory. That means that the average description will tend to be longer than any agreed target average description length. But, worse, it appears that some maintainers aren't able to exercise their discretion on this question in a manner which most of the rest of us would consider reasonable. IMO a proportionate response would be a target, and a hard limit, in policy. I would say: The extended Description should ideally fit within 14 lines. It must not be longer than 24 lines. The target of 14 lines would be missed only by 8.5% of packages and the limit of 24 lines breached only by 1.26% of packages. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21680.2628.183409.841...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
