Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:25:50PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:25:03PM -0700, Neil Spring
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>> dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitution variables are
>> limited to a single line (which seems poorly suited to long
>> descriptions).
> Then as long as the shared part is a single paragraph you should
> be fine.
> Actually, it looks like you could use ${Newline} and friends to
> include multiple lines (I haven't tried this myself, though)
Thanks, Daniel, ${Newline} worked. The trick I learned
while making this work is that when using debhelper, the
standard description must be kept in a different file, as
substvars is avoided in favor of pkgname.substvars.
So, in debian rules, anyone who would like to use a common
description with debhelper will have to:
cat debian/description.subst >> debian/pkg.substvars
cat debian/description.subst >> debian/pkg-dev.substvars
dh_gencontrol -a
thanks again,
-neil
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:49:13PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Writing and maintaining a package description seems to clearly be the > package maintainers job. In reference to Branden's message in this > thread, one would hope that the maintainers are also particularly well > suited to writing this (i.e., better suited than someone that doesn't > know the package). As I'm one of the bad examples in the other current thread on the subject, my assumptions are thoroughly disproven, so I'll just shut up and fix my description. Cheers T. pgpMaIZbY4JEz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:49:13PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > My argument was based on a matrix lintian error tags <-> > maintainers. There's lintian tags practically "owned" by > maintainers. That's what I meant with patterns. In those cases, > pointing things out directly will help more. In some cases, > description deficiencies may be related to English skills (I'm not a > native speaker myself). In those cases patches can achieve much more > than bugs without patches. I don't think anyone here is arguing that attaching a full description would be equally or less helpful than simply pointing out the problem. We're just saying that it would be useful in and off itself. For those of us that don't have time to write scores of descriptions for packages they are unfamiliar with, mass-filing in some sort of automated or semi-automated fashion is a reasonable way to point out the problem and, in the normal way bugs are fixed, eventually fix the problem as well. Writing and maintaining a package description seems to clearly be the package maintainers job. In reference to Branden's message in this thread, one would hope that the maintainers are also particularly well suited to writing this (i.e., better suited than someone that doesn't know the package). Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp6oRWBFfJgp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages > who fail to produce a proper description? Go for it. I'm tired of people who care about our users so little that they will not properly describe the package. It also makes me wonder, sometimes, if they actually understand their package well enough to coherently describe what it does to someone else. -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpW8Dw2btEk2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:25:03PM -0700, Neil Spring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitution variables are
> limited to a single line (which seems poorly suited to long
> descriptions).
Then as long as the shared part is a single paragraph you should be fine.
Actually, it looks like you could use ${Newline} and friends to
include multiple lines (I haven't tried this myself, though)
Daniel
--
/ Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\
|After the game, the king and |
|the pawn go in the same box. |
| -- Italian proverb |
\--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) /
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 03:25:23PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> Use ${description}, and debian/substvars. This is already supported.
> RTFM.
is there FM in the form of an example package? or can you
think of a method of finding packages that use this
technique?
dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitution variables are
limited to a single line (which seems poorly suited to long
descriptions). An example would likely clear this up
easily.
thanks,
-neil
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Benj. Mako Hill wrote: >>>I don't think that filing a bug saying that "Your extended package >>>description does not meet Debian policy requirements. Please consider >>>writing 4-5 lines to give sysadmins an idea what your package can do >>>for them." means asking too much from a Debian maintainer. >>You don't. But I can't help but think that there are a lot of >>obvious maintainer's duties more or less neglected - often by simple >>obmission, but sometimes patterns show. > Often, as in this case, those lapses in obvious (and documented) > maintainer duties, constitute bugs in a package. Maybe I'm > misunderstanding something in your argument here. My argument was based on a matrix lintian error tags <-> maintainers. There's lintian tags practically "owned" by maintainers. That's what I meant with patterns. In those cases, pointing things out directly will help more. In some cases, description deficiencies may be related to English skills (I'm not a native speaker myself). In those cases patches can achieve much more than bugs without patches. Cheers T. pgpxwD0sISNKF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > >>>I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the >>>duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should >>>usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier >>>would probably have to spend a lot more time to figure that out, at >>>least for lesser known packages. >>However, not providing a better description will (likely) not get anything >>done. > You don't know that. If we agreed to such a sweeping generalization, we > would not have the vast majority of bug reports in the BTS. Admittedly, I don't know that. Only one way to find out. Cheers T. pgpTI9QfTmq27.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Johannes Rohr wrote: > > I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the > > duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should > > usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier > > would probably have to spend a lot more time to figure that out, at > > least for lesser known packages. > > However, not providing a better description will (likely) not get > anything done. First, my guess is that it will be more effective than seem to imply. Second, pointing out bugs without fixes is certainly what the bug tracking system facilitates. > > I don't think that filing a bug saying that "Your extended package > > description does not meet Debian policy requirements. Please consider > > writing 4-5 lines to give sysadmins an idea what your package can do > > for them." means asking too much from a Debian maintainer. > > You don't. But I can't help but think that there are a lot of > obvious maintainer's duties more or less neglected - often by simple > obmission, but sometimes patterns show. Often, as in this case, those lapses in obvious (and documented) maintainer duties, constitute bugs in a package. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something in your argument here. Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpMck5SBQbc0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the > > duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should > > usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier > > would probably have to spend a lot more time to figure that out, at > > least for lesser known packages. > > However, not providing a better description will (likely) not get anything > done. You don't know that. If we agreed to such a sweeping generalization, we would not have the vast majority of bug reports in the BTS. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Johannes Rohr wrote: > I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the > duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should > usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier > would probably have to spend a lot more time to figure that out, at > least for lesser known packages. However, not providing a better description will (likely) not get anything done. > I don't think that filing a bug saying that "Your extended package > description does not meet Debian policy requirements. Please consider > writing 4-5 lines to give sysadmins an idea what your package can do > for them." means asking too much from a Debian maintainer. You don't. But I can't help but think that there are a lot of obvious maintainer's duties more or less neglected - often by simple obmission, but sometimes patterns show. Cheers T. pgpbUT5AjVPEd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] >> I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages >> who fail to produce a proper description? > [...] > > I doubt that just filing bugs without fix makes sense, OTOH > if you planned to submit 10 reports with "the description sucks, here > is better one - tags:patch" instead of 100 simply stating "the > description sucks", please go ahead. ;-) [...] I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier would probably have to spend a lot more time to figure that out, at least for lesser known packages. I don't think that filing a bug saying that "Your extended package description does not meet Debian policy requirements. Please consider writing 4-5 lines to give sysadmins an idea what your package can do for them." means asking too much from a Debian maintainer. You don't have to write "Your package sucks", there certainly are more polite and less offensive ways. I would e.g. tell them that a nice description might motivate more people to use and install your package. And BTW: Thanks, Johannes
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Neil Spring wrote:
> > 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!
Use ${description}, and debian/substvars. This is already supported. RTFM.
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
> 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
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:09:29PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages > > who fail to produce a proper description? > > Since this can seemingly be checked automatically, I would prefer you > make a patch for lintian and/or linda instead. Lintian already tries to catch those like kdebase-data. > This way, there are not hundreds of new bug reports, which means less > hassle for the maintainers, and new packages will also be checked for > this. ...and everyone will continue pretending everything's fine. :P Automated checks are a good idea, but sometimes you just have to tell people explicitely to cut it out with the automated description shit. Perhaps hundreds of bug reports are clutter themselves, but it's not like they're undeserved. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On pe, 2003-06-20 at 18:53, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages > who fail to produce a proper description? Since this can seemingly be checked automatically, I would prefer you make a patch for lintian and/or linda instead. This way, there are not hundreds of new bug reports, which means less hassle for the maintainers, and new packages will also be checked for this. -- Enemies of Carlotta 1.0 mailing list manager: http://liw.iki.fi/liw/eoc/
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > 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 doubt that just filing bugs without fix makes sense, OTOH if you planned to submit 10 reports with "the description sucks, here is better one - tags:patch" instead of 100 simply stating "the description sucks", please go ahead. ;-) cu andreas
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
Javier FernÃndez-Sanguino PeÃa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > 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. That sounds sane enough to me. -- Poems... always a sign of pretentious inner turmoil. pgpydGNseIUr0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [mass bug filing?] Short descriptions being used as long descriptions and other policy violations
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages > who fail to produce a proper description? Yes, please! Daniel
