On 22-Aug-01, 12:30 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this assertion in tension with the one you make later that "the
> one line description should be targetted at people who _don't_ have any
> idea what the package is." Why would such people know what "HTTP"
> stands fo
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 12:04:08PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> That wasn't addressed to me, but my reaction is the same as it was to
> the original proposal: this doesn't belong in policy. It belongs in
> dev-ref or the packaging manual, or some similar set of guidelines for
> maintainers.
I yie
I have caught-up the discussion on the topic of the short description
now. (I was not subscribed to debian-policy so I didn't follow the
discussion itself.) As the original bug-submitter I want to make
some final comments:
* I agree with most of Branden's proposal since it grants consistency
in
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> Is the Developers' Reference presently maintained?
I would so assume. The maintainer, Adam Di Carlo, is fairly
active, and I would think that any proposed additions would be
incorporated. He has been releasing the ref
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 11:03:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Have you asked yourself whether this really needs a policy
> dictum? (It does not, in my opinion. Recommended practice suggestions
> ought to go into the developers reference; not policy).
Is the Developers' Reference pres
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:05:59PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> I guess it says something for policy not needing to be used as a stick;
>> a mere 'should' has clearly sufficed.
Branden> Well, if I downgrade my "must not"'s to
Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Well, if I downgrade my "must not"'s to "should not"'s, would you second
> > the proposal?
I'm not sure, I have a terrific mail backlog and skimmed your proposal.
Chris makes some good points too, in the pa
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, if I downgrade my "must not"'s to "should not"'s, would you second
> the proposal?
That wasn't addressed to me, but my reaction is the same as it was to
the original proposal: this doesn't belong in policy. It belongs in
d
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 11:05:59PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I guess it says something for policy not needing to be used as a stick;
> a mere 'should' has clearly sufficed.
Well, if I downgrade my "must not"'s to "should not"'s, would you second
the proposal?
--
G. Branden Robinson
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Since you're fond of statistics, here are some for woody/main/i386:
>
> $ grep '^Description:' Packages | wc -l
>6126
> $ grep '^Description:' Packages | sort | uniq | wc -l
>5848
> $ grep '^Description:' Packages | fold -w 93 | wc -l
>6126
Unsuprising, since
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:17:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> However, we need to understand that some maintainers are quite enamored
> of their crap descriptions and will not change them without the weight
> of policy bearing down.
This doesn't strike me as true, and even if it is, it's not
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 05:19:21PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> I *do* think that whoever is maintaining "how to make debian packages"
> tutorials would be well advised to include or reference Branden's write
> up, though.
I have no objection to this. Lousy package descriptions have long been
(Sorry to come in late and revive this; I was out of town.)
Since there doesn't seem to be consensus on this topic, I thought I'd
weigh in with my opinion (worth every cent you paid for it). I like most
of Branden's proposals/points/guidelines, but none[1] of them belong in
policy. This is the beg
Hi,
>>"Sebastian" == Sebastian Rittau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sebastian> Currently, most package start the short package
Sebastian> description with a capital letter, but some don't. Also,
Sebastian> some short descriptions end with a period, some don't. I
Sebastian> think, policy state, w
[Do not CC me on messages to mailing lists, including mail to
debian-policy bugs; I read the debian-policy list.]
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> A question--
>
> suppose you were packaging a database adapter
>
> python-popy: database adapter
>
> Seems a bit light.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> A question--
> suppose you were packaging a database adapter
> python-popy: database adapter
What's a database "adapter"? That's not at all clear to me as a lay
person. At a first guess, I'd have assumed it was something special in
some
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 06:56:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> A package's short description should:
> * fit on an 80-character line within the control file (so that the
>package name and description together take up less than 80
>characters)
> * typically be written in a form tha
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:01:15AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:45:07PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > Perhaps a better approach, if the descriptions must be different,
> > would be to add something like (obsolete version), (current version),
> > (newly released version), (be
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> gcc - The GNU C compiler.
> gcc-2.95 - The GNU C compiler.
> gcc-3.0 - The GNU C compiler.
> gcc272 - The GNU C compiler.
>
> IMO, there is room here for just a little bit of clarification.
*nod*
--
Marcelo | She'd even given
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.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:45:07PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Is it really required to duplicate the information already present
> under the Version and Package field in the description field?
Well, no, that's not what I'm asking for at all.
> Perhaps a better approach, if the descriptions must be
> "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> c
[I realize there are few things more important to you than to have my
personal feedback on these issues, but please do not CC me on messages
to mailing lists, including mail to debian-policy bugs; I read the
debian-policy list.]
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 12:00:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> So the
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 07:58:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
> > to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
> > they're absol
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 07:58:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
> > to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
> > they're absol
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> ? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about consistency.
Hmm...
It should probably be about cramming as much information as possible into
a single line. On that note: requiring the first letter be capitalized
loses 1 bit of inf
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, you're using musts for the wrong thing again. Packages aren't going
> to get thrown out of the distro because of dodgy descriptions, even if
> they're absolutely, unambiguously in the wrong.
Where did I say package descriptions "
g 2001 03:20:05 +0200,
on Bug#108416: Format of short description should be mandated,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are some suggestions to get the ball rolling:
>
> A package's short description should:
> * fit on an 80-character line within the
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 03:44:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 02:08:56AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I'll spell it for you:
> > C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y
> You have not demonstrated how mandatory initial caps for all short
> descriptions achieves any of the following: [.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would guess that the broader context is what is meant in most package
> descriptions (and certainly this one), but this is a call that has to be
> made by the package maintainer. This is why I recommended "should"s
> for most de
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Description: Perl extensions for writing pRPC servers and clients
> (is "Perl" more canonical than "perl"?)
Both are. "Perl" is the name of the language, "perl" is the name of
the interpreter.
--
Marcelo | "?" he said.
[EMA
[Do not CC me on mail to public lists, including mails to bugs against
debian-policy.]
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 02:08:56AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I'll spell it for you:
>
> C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y
>
> I don't care about proper nouns, no more than I care about being able to
> break down the dam
[Do not CC me on messages to mailing lists, including mail to
debian-policy bugs; I read the debian-policy list.]
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:14:18AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Description: Perl extensions for writing pRPC servers and
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 10:16:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > What's wrong with:
> >
> > Description: Editor for foo files
> >
> > ? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about consistency.
>
> Because "Editor" isn't a pr
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> What's wrong with:
>
> Description: Editor for foo files
>
> ? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about consistency.
Because "Editor" isn't a proper noun in this context?
Your own view on the importance of proper English is q
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:17:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 10:52:55PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > > I also think that that short description should be as close as possible
> > > to a real sentenc
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:34:10PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:17:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Package: foo-ed
> > Description: editor for foo files
> What's wrong with:
> Description: Editor for foo files
> ? I mean, this isn't about grammer, this is about con
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.6.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Currently, most package start the short package description with a
> capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
> with a period, some don't.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> Currently, most package start the short package description with a
> capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
> with a period, some don't.
No, this does not belong in policy. If you have a problem with t
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.6.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Currently, most package start the short package description with a
> capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
> with a period, some don't.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 10:52:55PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I also think that that short description should be as close as possible
> > to a real sentence.
> Agreed. Thatswhy I prefer the period. :)
I strongly disagree. Mo
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.6.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Currently, most package start the short package description with a
> capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
> with a period, some don't.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:02:08PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
Gnnn...
> > Currently, most package start the short package description with a
> > capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
> > with a period,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, most package start the short package description with a
capital letter, but some don't. Also, some short descriptions end
with a period, some don't. I think, policy state, what is correct.
(I would prefer capital letter and peri
44 matches
Mail list logo
