On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:47 AM, James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: Well a user may want a simple tool, as opposed to an advanced tool. And for said user, Gnome may be irrelevant. Also, uses GTK doesn't necessarily mean Gnome. However, if a package is going to pull in Gnome libs, would be nice to know that in the summary. -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
