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. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
