On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:03:37 +1030 Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
Attachment:
pgptkKX20GutK.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
