[2013-08-01 18:02:38 +0200] Karol Blazewicz: > The same upstream url can be used by many packages and standardizing > would make it a bit easier to find which packages need to have the > upstream url updated. That is just not feasible. As you noticed yourself: sometimes, a www prefix and/or slash suffix to a URL are required, sometimes not. Certain upstream projects have several websites; others use a language different from English on their main page, but have an English subpage available (what page would you link to then?), etc. > I don't know if maintainers should write package descriptions or > should they just take them from upstream, but IMHO e.g. > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/kdeplasma-addons-wallpapers-virus/ > : 'Description: Virus' > has to go. For this and everything else that follows, please open separate bug reports or feature requests in our tracker - except for: > Some language-related packages use the same description for all of them e.g. > xpdf-korean - Encoding information to use specific character sets in > Xpdf; does not include fonts > vim-spell-af - Language files for Vim spell checking That's fine to me (obviously, I maintain them): they're split packages that all do the same thing and I do not think the redundant description causes any confusion of what package is meant for what language... > Should language files always have a description that says which > language do they represent or are package names enough? Just calm down. Anything that makes sense is fine. :) -- Gaetan
