On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 00:04:16 -0800 Joe Zeff <joe@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list or the devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list. kevin
Attachment:
pgpZdMedokClZ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
