Joey Hess writes ("Re: identical extended descriptions"):
> Did i ever say I was going to send out automated bug reports?
If you don't plan to send out automated bug reports, how about this:
Try picking half a dozen examples and filing bug reports against those
and see how you
>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Drake> On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Drake> *This* proposal is to file 200+ bug reports because the
Drake> package descriptions don't duplicate information implicit in
Drake> package names, package sec
>>"Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Perhaps if the kernel version was included in the short description,
Brian> then I wouldn't have this problem:
Done. All the kernel packages should have the version number
in both the short and the long description (if the kerne
Drake Diedrich wrote:
>*This* proposal is to file 200+ bug reports because the package
> descriptions don't duplicate information implicit in package names, package
> sections, and version numbers. Before those 200 bug reports are filed I
> think policy section 2.3.3 should be modified to stat
Chris Waters wrote:
> I'd rather see 'em judged on a case-by-case basis than have 200
> mechanically generated reports sent out blind.
Did i ever say I was going to send out automated bug reports?
> Although I do suspect that a careful inspection of package
> descriptions would result in well mor
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless someone disagrees, I'll file 200 or so bug reports a few days from
> now.
I'd rather see 'em judged on a case-by-case basis than have 200
mechanically generated reports sent out blind. Many are like the
kernel -- the difference is the version number
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Huh? Why do we have a whole section of things people need not
> select? And why do you think the distinction between a library
> package and the corresponding -dev pacjage is ``do not select''?
Rhetorical - we do hav
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Arguably, the description of these packages should *not* be
>>> different, seeing how close they are in packaging.
Joey> Right, I
>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Drake> OK, I'll disagree. :) A great many of these are library
Drake> packages and their associated -dev packages. I'd rather the
Drake> message "You don't need to select these" were put in the
Huh? Why do we have a whole sectio
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 10:44:58PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Yes, it is a 5 word change in the Control file. Do you feel it
> > is worth it? I don't thik it makes a meaningful distinction (It'll
> > fool the md5sum check, though ;-).
>
> Heh. It wouldn't hurt,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Yes, it is a 5 word change in the Control file. Do you feel it
> is worth it? I don't thik it makes a meaningful distinction (It'll
> fool the md5sum check, though ;-).
Heh. It wouldn't hurt, but it doesn't really matter.
> Joey> Maybe we don't need an amendme
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Arguably, the description of these packages should *not* be
>> different, seeing how close they are in packaging.
Joey> Right, I don't have a problem with that. People tend to know
Joey> what kernel versions
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Incidentally, the only significant difference in the
> kernel-{source,image,doc,header} packages is the version nubmer. The
> packaging is identical, indeed, it is automated, and the versi0on
> number is included in the name of the package.
>
> Arguably
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is *not* a small problem. It is an epidemic. One package in 17 has the
> problem!
That is, less than 6% of packages.
> Packages exhibiting this problem, by md5sum of their long descriptions
> (note that this probably misses some that have long descrip
Hi,
Incidentally, the only significant difference in the
kernel-{source,image,doc,header} packages is the version nubmer. The
packaging is identical, indeed, it is automated, and the versi0on
number is included in the name of the package.
Arguably, the description of these pack
Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > The long description is there for a reason, and I feel these packages are
> > ignoring it it. The libc5 versions should explain, in detail, why you
> > might want to install those packages over the non-libc5 versions. An
> > extended
> > description should be a hand-craf
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The long description is there for a reason, and I feel these packages are
> ignoring it it. The libc5 versions should explain, in detail, why you
> might want to install those packages over the non-libc5 versions. An extended
> description should be a hand-c
Ok, I'm increasingly annoyed at large sets of packages that differ in small
ways and share identical extended descriptions, with only a cursory
indication of the difference given in the short description. I know there
are more, but this is the set I stumbed upon tonight:
Description: Net
18 matches
Mail list logo
