Would you be angry, Rob, if I disagreed? > > Description : curses-based file browser with the possibility of > > editing directories > > This short description is bad, it should describe what the program does > without including a technical description of how it does it, so dont > include that its ncurses based there.
The "curses-based" part is interesting and highly informative, well worth the space it takes in the one-line Description. One could say "terminal-based", which would be okay, too; but I admit that I slightly prefer "curses-based". That one can run the program without X is a major point of the program. The probable inference is that the program is lean and minimal, which some users like me really appreciate. I respect your reasons, Rob. I think that they are good ones. But in this case I admit that it seems to me that the "curses-based" qualifier clearly merits inclusion in the package's one-line Description, as proposed. The line is the one line an admin sees when browsing through long lists of packages; it must convey the essential purpose, function and style of the program in one line. The "curses-based" qualifier is sufficiently important and serves the purpose, in my view. I will probably use `ded' when packaged. If Nico had not included the "curses-based" in the one-line Description, however, the package probably would have escaped my attention altogether. So the "curses-based" qualifier has been informative to me, at least. What do you think? -- Thaddeus H. Black 508 Nellie's Cave Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA +1 540 961 0920, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp1v3BA4cfSv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
