On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 13:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 14.09.2008 15:35, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 10:36 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Yes, I know, enlightenment is designed for small machines and quite
>> on them. But those things I quoted and other sections in the
>> sound more like advertising than a proper description. Up to a
>> point that's okay IMHO, but here the packager IMHO shoot way over the
> Wow. That is indeed too much information. :) I'm not sure how we should
> "guideline" that, other than something like:
> == Descriptions ==
> Your package description should contain useful data about the package,
> and answer the question "what is this and what does it do?". In general,
> the description should not exceed 10 lines or so. Try not to put too
> much here, this isn't an epic novel, it's just a package description.
> Also, there is no real need to "advertise" the package here, so
> statements like "this is the best perl module that has ever been created
> by humans", while possibly accurate, are not terribly useful in
> answering the question "what is this and what does it do?".
Sounds good. Not sure, but maybe it's possible to write it a bit
Agreed. Shorter would be better.
Futhermore, I'd like to see some words added aiming at use of
non-self-explanatory acronyms/names and redundant wording.
I am getting the creeps when reading descriptions similar to
"Hawaii, the Moscow-daemon for Tokio, a free open-source implemention of
PROZL/RKNR for GNIZL implemented by Dr. J.Doe at IRTX in
Everything in Fedora is supposed to be "open source" ... who implemented
it and where is non-interesting ... Hawaii, Moscow, Tokio etc. don't
tell much to anybody, who aren't already familiar with any of these.