On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 23:39 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri November 21 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 23:06 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > > > On Fri November 21 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > > > > > How about "DBUS-based package management service"? > > > > > > > > Is the fact that it uses D-Bus *really* that important to an end user > > > > to warrant putting it in the summary? > > > > > > It is the only fact I know about it that makes it special. I do not > > > really know what it does, but as far as I understand it is like yum-cron, > > > except that it triggers an action not periodically but via an dbus-event, > > > e.g. when the yum metadata was refreshed or when the system got network > > > access. But I do not really know which package is it, but this is what I > > > experienced on live systems and it seems to match the description. > > > > Then perhaps it's not special at all. Maybe it *shouldn't* really > > "exist" in the end-user's mind outside of gnome-packagekit and/or > > KPackageKit. > > If the package should not exist in the end-user's minde, then don't show it to > them. I find this idea both intriguing and insightful. But I'll leave the heuristics and implementation to you. > > That's not to say that enterprising/adventurous users shouldn't look > > closer, but that sometimes the distinctions just aren't all that > > important. > > If the package in question really is part of the process I described above, > then the usefulness of mentioning DBUS in the summary was already shown. I > doubt very much that I would have found the connection between this > beheaviour and a package with the summary "package management service" very > fast. Why does a user care how their packages are managed? I mean, the technical details are cute, but so what? > Also the summary including "DBUS" is already very short, therefore I see no > added value in removing it from the summary. "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > If users need to be protected > from this word in summaries, because they do not know it, then they should > probably get the software installed anyways to keep their system uptodate. But they already do, in a default install, so this point is moot. > And this is the only possible argument that comes to my mind, why it should > be removed. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
