> This is *not* what I asked. I've complained on the long description > only. The other fields like "Depends:" are still needed, without > having them to be truncated by "less". > > This shows that any attempt to write a wrapper will fail at some > point, and the real solution would be either to limit the length > of the extended description or to have an option in the tools to > limit the length of the output of the extended description.
I realise that long package descriptions can be inconvenient. ~2000 lines is kind of ridiculous. However, is it really worth a discussion which has gone on this long? Even if a policy decision isn't made, you could: * File a lintian wishlist bug with the "pedantic" severity about extended descriptions over a certain length. This would convince many packagers to reduce the length of their description, even if not enforced. * Write a patch for apt or dpkg that allows the user to decide whether to limit the length of the output. I see no reason why it wouldn't be accepted. -- 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/54bee7e5.5060...@bitmessage.ch
