On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:45:07PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > >>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Branden> gcc - The GNU C compiler. gcc-2.95 - The GNU C compiler. > Branden> gcc-3.0 - The GNU C compiler. gcc272 - The GNU C > Branden> compiler. > > Branden> IMO, there is room here for just a little bit of > Branden> clarification. > > Is it really required to duplicate the information already present > under the Version and Package field in the description field? > > Perhaps a better approach, if the descriptions must be different, > would be to add something like (obsolete version), (current version), > (newly released version), (beta version), (alpha version), or > (dangerous version) instead.
Yes, there is a problem (especially in this case) because gcc-3.0 on i386 is "not default" and gcc-2.95 is "default". One some archs gcc-3.0 is the default. If you used the "new version", "old version" parts, then when gcc-3.1 comes out, we'll have to do gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0 uploads just to change the short description. Doesn't make much sense to me to require short descriptions to be different, so long as they are descriptive and not ambiguous like "libfoo-dev: Development files". Also, clarification such as expressed for the gcc-* case, is better handled in the long description. That's what it's there for. Ben -- .----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----. / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
