Re: identical extended descriptions
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Incidentally, the only significant difference in the
> kernel-{source,image,doc,header} packages is the version nubmer. The
> packaging is identical, indeed, it is automated, and the versi0on
> number is included in the name of the package.
>
> Arguably, the description of these packages should *not* be
> different, seeing how close they are in packaging.
Right, I don't have a problem with that. People tend to know what kernel
versions mean. (Though it would be easy enough to stick the kernel version
number into the descriptions too.)
> A very similar argument holds for netscapa*461 vs netscape*47
> -- the significant difference in corresponding packages lies in the
> version number.
If you qualify that to netscape-smotif-\d* (for example), right.
What really annoys me is that the -libc5 versions have the same
description, leaving someone who doesn't know the history in the dark about
why libc5 versions would ever be necessary.
> Perhaps it should be deemed acceptable for packages that
> incorporate versions in their names to have identical long
> descriptions?
I think it's clear there needs to be some wiggle room. Which is fine, I
mainly just want to wake people up to the problem, not come up with
something that specifies every possiblity in leu of common sense.
Maybe we don't need an amendment at all, since many of these packages could be
said to be volating policy by not having a description that "tells the user
what they need to know to decide whether to install the package".
--
see shy jo
Reply to: