> However I've found a number of packages which use a long > description which is more or less the _same_ as the short > description.
This is just a thought, but perhaps the control file could incorporate a mechanism for common description of packages from the same source. For example, NetCDF has a fine description for the main package, but lousy, redundant ones for sub-packages, such as netcdfg-dev: Development kit for NetCDF. Includes headers, static libraries, and documentation. The maintainer has often already put time into making a good description for the main package, and it would be lovely if that description could also appear in sub-packages with little effort and without copy-and-paste. Thanks for your efforts to improve descriptions! thanks, -neil On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > Policy section 2.3.3 states: > The description should be written so that it gives the system > administrator enough information to decide whether to install the > package. > However I've found a number of packages which use a long description > which > is more or less the _same_ as the short description. Sample: > $ apt-cache show kdebase-data > (...) > Description: KDE Base (shared data) > KDE Base (shared data). > . > This package is part of the official KDE base module. > And some (2) others which do not provide an extended description at > all or > provide an extended description of only one line. I've used an ugly > scripts > (attached) which produces ugly results (attached too). > I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages > who fail to produce a proper description? > I would probably first do so for the packages whose short description = > long description or who do not have a description at all and would > review > which of the "one liners" do not provide sufficient information. > Regards > Javi