Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > I think people are becoming too ready to propose grand, sweeping
> > changes to policy in order to fix obscure, minor problems.
> I agree.
> > If you *really* want something in policy, I'd suggest: "the package
> > description should list the binaries (or at least, the main binary) if
> > it doesn't match the package name." Then, you can use dpkg --info.
> Yuck. Package descriptions shouldn't become dumping grounds for
> every peice of information about a package. The sole purpose of a
> package description is to let you decide if you should
> install/remove a package.
Hmm, compelling argument --I think I basically agree. However, there
are already a large number of packages (util-linux, shellutils,
findutils, etc.) which already do this, which is why I suggested it.
Personally, I'd rather just leave this whole proposal out. But I
think that putting something in the package description is a lesser
evil than creating a man page for a package. I prefer to have the
package system isolated from and unentangled with the actual operating
system itself. A man page for a package seems like a violation of
boundaries to me. It just feels wrong.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
