On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:03:37 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 09 February 2017, Kevin Fenzi sent:
> Unfortunately, it's kind of subjective what a good summary /
> description would be. Perhaps the guideline could say "Describe what
> the package is as if to someone who had no idea what it was" ?
> But in some cases there's packages like libraries where the
> audience for the package already should be someone who knows pretty
> well what it does.
I'd suggest that *all* packages need clear descriptions, and all
updates need adequate explanations.
Sure, but what does that _mean_? Clear to who? adequate to what?
It's not really a objective standard, which will lead to "Your
description isn't clear" "yes it is" "no it's not" ...
When I do a yum update, I do try to research the packages it wants to
update, first. Some of which you just can't find any useful
information about them.
Likewise, I might do a yum search on a topic, and get a plethora of
oddball results that I can't work out whether they'd be useful, or
unrelated.
> Anyhow, I'd suggest:
>
> 1) file a bug on nitrokey politely saying that the description and
> summary are not useful and ask them to redo them.
I'd be filing umpteen of the damn things, If I had the perseverance to
go through bugzilla (it's not quick or easy). Hence the comment about
it ought to be be more automatic. And as I said, I just picked that
one as a random example.
ok. Then I would suggest you talk to the FPC and try and improve the
guidelines there.
kevin