RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 23:19:57 UTC 2008


On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 23:39 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri November 21 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 23:06 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > On Fri November 21 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > > > How about "DBUS-based package management service"?
> > > >
> > > > Is the fact that it uses D-Bus *really* that important to an end user
> > > > to warrant putting it in the summary?
> > >
> > > It is the only fact I know about it that makes it special. I do not
> > > really know what it does, but as far as I understand it is like yum-cron,
> > > except that it triggers an action not periodically but via an dbus-event,
> > > e.g. when the yum metadata was refreshed or when the system got network
> > > access. But I do not really know which package is it, but this is what I
> > > experienced on live systems and it seems to match the description.
> >
> > Then perhaps it's not special at all. Maybe it *shouldn't* really
> > "exist" in the end-user's mind outside of gnome-packagekit and/or
> > KPackageKit.
> 
> If the package should not exist in the end-user's minde, then don't show it to 
> them.

I find this idea both intriguing and insightful. But I'll leave the
heuristics and implementation to you.

> > That's not to say that enterprising/adventurous users shouldn't look
> > closer, but that sometimes the distinctions just aren't all that
> > important.
> 
> If the package in question really is part of the process I described above, 
> then the usefulness of mentioning DBUS in the summary was already shown. I 
> doubt very much that I would have found the connection between this 
> beheaviour and a package with the summary "package management service" very 
> fast.

Why does a user care how their packages are managed? I mean, the
technical details are cute, but so what?

> Also the summary including "DBUS" is already very short, therefore I see no 
> added value in removing it from the summary. 

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

> If users need to be protected 
> from this word in summaries, because they do not know it, then they should 
> probably get the software installed anyways to keep their system uptodate.

But they already do, in a default install, so this point is moot.

> And this is the only possible argument that comes to my mind, why it should 
> be removed.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet at gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20081121/5e256118/attachment.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list