Re: Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 07 February 2017, updates(a)fedoraproject.org sent:
>  Name        : nitrokey-app
>  Product     : Fedora 24
>  Version     : 0.6.3
>  Release     : 1.fc24
>  URL         : https://github.com/Nitrokey/nitrokey-app
>  Summary     : Nitrokey's Application
>  Description :
>  Nitrokey's Application.  
I just picked the above at random, as an example of crapness.  There's
no end of notifications about updates that give no actual information.
You don't know what the update is about, you don't know what the
original package is for.  Likewise, when doing YUM searches, there are
packages with crap descriptions.

I wish that sort of useless description would result in packages getting
an automatic banning.  That and URIs that don't work, or lead to
similarly un-useful websites.  I've seen plenty of packages with links
that lead to some GITHUB kind of thing with zero information about what
the package actual does or is used for, and no links anywhere on the
page that lead to something else that might explain what it is.

Maybe then, the big stick approach, might force some sanity.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

If you are not the intended recipient, why are you reading their email?
You bastard!



-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

Evolution keeps on telling me that it's refreshing, but I still want to
go and get a drink.

Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Joe Zeff]

On 02/08/2017 11:56 PM, Tim wrote:
>  I wish that sort of useless description would result in packages
> getting
>  an automatic banning. 
No, not banning.  There should be guidelines for what an acceptable 
description consists of, and any package that doesn't meet them should 
be rejected until it does.

Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 00:04:16 -0800
Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us&gt; wrote:

>  On 02/08/2017 11:56 PM, Tim wrote:
>  > I wish that sort of useless description would result in packages
>  > getting an automatic banning.  
>  
>  No, not banning.  There should be guidelines for what an acceptable 
>  description consists of, and any package that doesn't meet them
>  should be rejected until it does. 
Well, the time to make sure that looks good is at initial review time. 
The packaging guidelines say this about summary and description: 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description

Unfortunately, it's kind of subjective what a good summary /
description would be. Perhaps the guideline could say "Describe what
the package is as if to someone who had no idea what it was" ? 
But in some cases there's packages  like libraries where the audience
for the package already should be someone who knows pretty well what it
does. 

Anyhow, I'd suggest: 

1) file a bug on nitrokey politely saying that the description and
summary are not useful and ask them to redo them. 

2) If you like open a dialog with the Fedora Packaging Comittee to make
the guidelines better. You can find them on the
packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org list or the
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org list. 

kevin

Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 09 February 2017, Kevin Fenzi sent:
>  Unfortunately, it's kind of subjective what a good summary /
>  description would be. Perhaps the guideline could say "Describe what
>  the package is as if to someone who had no idea what it was" ? 
>  But in some cases there's packages  like libraries where the audience
>  for the package already should be someone who knows pretty well what
>  it does.  
I'd suggest that *all* packages need clear descriptions, and all updates
need adequate explanations.

When I do a yum update, I do try to research the packages it wants to
update, first.  Some of which you just can't find any useful information
about them.

Likewise, I might do a yum search on a topic, and get a plethora of
oddball results that I can't work out whether they'd be useful, or
unrelated.

>  Anyhow, I'd suggest: 
>  
>  1) file a bug on nitrokey politely saying that the description and
>  summary are not useful and ask them to redo them.  
I'd be filing umpteen of the damn things, If I had the perseverance to
go through bugzilla (it's not quick or easy).  Hence the comment about
it ought to be be more automatic.  And as I said, I just picked that one
as a random example.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

Just because nobody complains, it doesn't mean that all parachutes are
perfect.

Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:03:37 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au&gt; wrote:

>  Allegedly, on or about 09 February 2017, Kevin Fenzi sent:
>  > Unfortunately, it's kind of subjective what a good summary /
>  > description would be. Perhaps the guideline could say "Describe what
>  > the package is as if to someone who had no idea what it was" ? 
>  > But in some cases there's packages  like libraries where the
>  > audience for the package already should be someone who knows pretty
>  > well what it does.   
>  
>  I'd suggest that *all* packages need clear descriptions, and all
>  updates need adequate explanations. 
Sure, but what does that _mean_? Clear to who? adequate to what?
It's not really a objective standard, which will lead to "Your
description isn't clear" "yes it is" "no it's not" ...
>  
>  When I do a yum update, I do try to research the packages it wants to
>  update, first.  Some of which you just can't find any useful
>  information about them.
>  
>  Likewise, I might do a yum search on a topic, and get a plethora of
>  oddball results that I can't work out whether they'd be useful, or
>  unrelated.
>  
>  > Anyhow, I'd suggest: 
>  > 
>  > 1) file a bug on nitrokey politely saying that the description and
>  > summary are not useful and ask them to redo them.   
>  
>  I'd be filing umpteen of the damn things, If I had the perseverance to
>  go through bugzilla (it's not quick or easy).  Hence the comment about
>  it ought to be be more automatic.  And as I said, I just picked that
>  one as a random example. 
ok. Then I would suggest you talk to the FPC and try and improve the
guidelines there. 

kevin

Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 00:04 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
>  On 02/08/2017 11:56 PM, Tim wrote:
>  > I wish that sort of useless description would result in packages getting
>  > an automatic banning.
>  
>  No, not banning.  There should be guidelines for what an acceptable 
>  description consists of, and any package that doesn't meet them should 
>  be rejected until it does. 
I can't see the message this is in reply to. Was it perhaps cross-
posted from somewhere else?

poc

Fedora 24 Update: nitrokey-app-0.6.3-1.fc24

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 09 February 2017, Patrick O'Callaghan sent:
>  I can't see the message this is in reply to. Was it perhaps
> cross-
>  posted from somewhere else?  
The first message was mine, I hit "reply" to a package-announce message,
but should have used forward.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

Television should really come with an intelligence knob. I've tried
adjusting the brightness, but it didn't help.