On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 17:00 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:53:55PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > > Sounds good. Not sure, but maybe it's possible to write it a bit shorter > > to work against the "guidelines grow and grow" trend (¹). Maybe > > something like this is enough: > > > > """ > > The description should not be exceed round about ten lines of text and > > contain useful data about what the packaged software does. The > > description should be written from a distance point of view and not > > sound like advertising. > > """ > > I don't think advertising should be mentionned, nor removing the authors, > in my opinion this should be left to the packager (and the reviewer). -1 > This allows to have a description that fits with what upstream would have > wanted for the package description which is, in my opinion, a desirable > option to leave, even though it means having some kind of advirtising. > So in my opinion it should only be > > """ > The description should not be exceed round about ten lines of text and > contain useful data about what the packaged software does > """ > > This should rule out the obscure acronyms, since they are need to be > explained to have 'useful data about what the packaged software does', > but leave to the packager room for optional items like advertisement > and author names. No. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
