On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 05:19:21PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > I *do* think that whoever is maintaining "how to make debian packages" > tutorials would be well advised to include or reference Branden's write > up, though.
I have no objection to this. Lousy package descriptions have long been a pet peeve of mine, and I am interested in helping to draft some guidelines to help write good ones. It is less important to me which of Debian's developer manuals it ends up in. However, we need to understand that some maintainers are quite enamored of their crap descriptions and will not change them without the weight of policy bearing down. Thus it is worthwhile to identify some minimal set of rules we really don't want to see broken in package descriptions. > On 11-Aug-01, 18:56 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A package's short description should not: > > [snip] > > 2. refer to the names of any other software packages, protocl names, > > standards, or specifications in their canonical forms (if one > > exists) > > This should be in the "A package's short description should:" section, > right? Or include the word "except" between "specifications" and "in". > And "protocol" is misspelled. You are correct; thanks for noting these. > [1] With the possible exception of the "should be less than 80 > characters" clause. Which already *is* in policy. -- G. Branden Robinson | Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux | best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | are right.
pgpvVoRH63Pku.pgp
Description: PGP signature
