On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 17:00 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:53:55PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Sounds good. Not sure, but maybe it's possible to write it a bit shorter
> to work against the "guidelines grow and grow" trend (¹). Maybe
> something like this is enough:
> The description should not be exceed round about ten lines of text and
> contain useful data about what the packaged software does. The
> description should be written from a distance point of view and not
> sound like advertising.
I don't think advertising should be mentionned, nor removing the authors,
in my opinion this should be left to the packager (and the reviewer).
This allows to have a description that fits with what upstream would
wanted for the package description which is, in my opinion, a desirable
option to leave, even though it means having some kind of advirtising.
So in my opinion it should only be
The description should not be exceed round about ten lines of text and
contain useful data about what the packaged software does
This should rule out the obscure acronyms, since they are need to be
explained to have 'useful data about what the packaged software does',
but leave to the packager room for optional items like advertisement
and author names.