On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:16:42 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > >> 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. This is splitting-hairs. A user with special requirements (= low resource usage, short dependency chain) could query details about a package or attempt installation and stop as soon as the total size is known. Btw, an application could be simple and still use various frameworks which result in a long dependency chain. > 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. It's a pain to maintain such summaries, though. Imagine, first it uses a standalone library. Later the library is developed further and enhanced to communicate with desktop services. It's much more important to sum up what a package does than to sum up what frameworks it is built with. Details can go into description blocks and may be examined with package resolvers. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
