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 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 suppose a native English speaker is able to write it more clear in
(¹) -- heck, maybe this should not be in the guidelines at all; maybe a
new "best practices" document might be a better place for this and
similar things, as "description not to long, no advertising style" is
obvious to round about 99 percent of our packagers...