On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:33 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > The packaging guidelines have a single sentence on package summaries: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description > > "The summary should be a short and concise description of the package" > > Broken packages are a problem as PackageKit shows the summary first (in > bold) in preference to the package name. This is by design. What is the rationale for this design? Just a guess that it's better? > Quite a lot of packages have summary text that is overly verbose, and > this makes the GUI and output from pkcon look rubbish. > > For instance, I've filed > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472365 where the oggconvert > package has a summary of: > > "A simple GNOME application that converts media files to Free formats" > > First, we don't need to say it's an application, not that it's GNOME > specific. Surely something like this would be better: > > "Simple media converter" > or > "Simple conversion to free media formats" > or > "Simple media converter using free formats" Why is "simple" a useful word, but GNOME isn't? For someone using a GNOME desktop I could see the later being much more helpful. Also, as someone else mentioned: PackageKit.x86_64 : System daemon that is a DBUS abstraction layer for package : management ..."abstraction layer" seems more wordy than needed, also "system daemon" seems redundant: PackageKit.x86_64 : DBUS daemon for package management ...a list of stop words like that, might be useful ... or even better someone should get a librarian involved in Fedora :) -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
