Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-30 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 14:40 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Personally I think this boilerplate has little to no value, cutting the > long sentence down to something like just "Rust crate foo" would help This change has now been merged and will reach Debian eventually:

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-22 Thread Paul Wise
On Thu, 2023-09-21 at 19:05 +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > the structured metadata of crates only has a short description[0] Would the Debian Rust team be willing to talk to the upstream Rust community on adding the concept of crate long descriptions? > which is often also not very

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-21 Thread Fabian Grünbichler
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:10:58AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > I have noticed that almost all Rust packages in Debian have boilerplate > long descriptions that aren't very useful to Debian users. The only > useful info is the crate name, but that is also in the package name. > > As far

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-21 Thread Barak A. Pearlmutter
It is traditional to use the ancient IBM text "This page intentionally left blank"

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-20 Thread Gard Spreemann
Hi Johannes, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes: > Quoting Gard Spreemann (2023-09-20 09:26:58) >> Paul Wise writes: >> > […] since the Rust packages are basically only used as build-deps and >> > therefore have no human users. >> I just wanted to raise awareness that some of us humans do

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-20 Thread Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
Hi Gard, Quoting Gard Spreemann (2023-09-20 09:26:58) > Paul Wise writes: > > […] since the Rust packages are basically only used as build-deps and > > therefore have no human users. > I just wanted to raise awareness that some of us humans do use librust-*-dev > packages directly, having put

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-20 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Paul" == Paul Wise writes: Paul> Hi all, I have noticed that almost all Rust packages in Debian Paul> have boilerplate long descriptions that aren't very useful to Paul> Debian users. The only useful info is the crate name, but that Paul> is also in the package name.

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-20 Thread Gard Spreemann
Hi, Paul Wise writes: > […] since the Rust packages are basically only used as build-deps and > therefore have no human users. I just wanted to raise awareness that some of us humans do use librust-*-dev packages directly, having put cargo in permanent offline mode and having swapped out its

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-19 Thread Julien Puydt
Hi Le mer. 20 sept. 2023, 04:11, Paul Wise a écrit : > > So I would like to suggest Debian relax our requirements around binary > package descriptions, especially for Rust binary packages. > > Does anyone object to this change? > Yes, definitely. I know it is a pain to write those texts, but

Re: allow missing description fields and empty long descriptions for Rust/etc packages?

2023-09-19 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Paul Wise (2023-09-20 04:10:58) > I have noticed that almost all Rust packages in Debian have boilerplate > long descriptions that aren't very useful to Debian users. The only > useful info is the crate name, but that is also in the package name. > > As far as I know they inherit this