Need help with improving package descriptions for Cppcheck
Hi,
I'm the maintainer of Cppcheck package and I recently got a bug report
about the description and as I'm not a technical writer, nor am I native
English speaker, I'm requestiong help to improve the description.
The current description is "This program tries to detect bugs that your
C/C++ compiler don't see. The goal is no false positives. Your compiler
can detect many problems that Cppcheck don't try to detect. Cppcheck is
versatile. You can check non-standard code that includes various
compiler extensions, inline assembly code, etc. "
http://packages.debian.org/sid/cppcheck
The program description in upstream site starts like this, but there is
quite a lot of additional information:
"Cppcheck is an analysis tool for C/C++ code. Unlike C/C++ compilers and
many other analysis tools, we don't detect syntax errors. Cppcheck only
detects the types of bugs that the compilers normally fail to detect.
The goal is no false positives. "
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/cppcheck/index.php?title=Main_Page
A short list about this program which I think could be used to build up
the description:
- It is for C and C++ programmers and people who tests programs written
in those languages.
- It is a command line application (there is also a GUI, but it is not
yet packaged for Debian nor do I have plans to package it at the moment
due to lack of time and no-one has requested it) for static code
analysis of C or C++ source code.
- It can find real bugs from the source code. The kind of bugs that can
cause e.g. program to crash, misbehave or leak memory.
- It stands out (or at leasts tries to) from other similar tools by
having a low amount of false positives
- It also stands out from some of the tools by not requiring valid
syntax and it is possible to check code which uses 3rd party libraries,
non-standard compiler extensions etc.
- There is also a list of checks which can be mentioned by name (see the
upstream web site for full list), which should perhaps be mentioned in
the long description. But again I'm not sure how to format the list and
should all be mentioned or just something?
Thanks for any help or advice you can give.
--
Reijo
Reply to: