Bug#754658: please display the package's description

2014-09-21 Thread Andrew Starr-Bochicchio 
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Raphael Hertzog  wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> > I think this fall back should not be used, except for packages that
>> > build a single binary.  It results in nonsense like:
>>
>> The heuristics used by the old PTS are probably better. A summary:
>
> Ack. I updated distro-tracker to do that, except that we return an
> empty string instead of the meaningless "source package".

After seeing it in use, I also agree. Thanks for fixing it up Raphael.

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

   Ubuntu Developer 
   Debian Developer 
   PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAL6k_Aywgd1hj6M9AxAG=65t9fglxjdhhn7_7hfo-jwlhza...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#754658: please display the package's description

2014-09-21 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli 
[ quoted text edit to add references ]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:39:13PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 1) When only one binary package, use the description from it.
> 
> 2) When more than one binary package but one has the same name as the
> source package, use the description from that.
> 
> 3) Otherwise, use "source package".

Uhm, interesting, I always thought the heuristic was slightly
difference.

Is there an argument for not replacing point (3) above with:

  (3*) Otherwise, use the description of the first binary in
  debian/control order

My gut feeling is that (2) is enough to counter most of the misleading
results that (3*) alone would produce.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#754658: please display the package's description

2014-09-21 Thread Paul Wise 
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> Uhm, interesting, I always thought the heuristic was slightly
> difference.

It was always that way FYI.

> Is there an argument for not replacing point (3) above with:
>
>   (3*) Otherwise, use the description of the first binary in
>   debian/control order
>
> My gut feeling is that (2) is enough to counter most of the misleading
> results that (3*) alone would produce.

Sounds good to me.

Raphael, the PTS also has long descriptions in title attributes of the
abbrev tags that enclose short descriptions, could we add that to the
distro tracker too? The PTS uses this HTML:

{shortdesc}

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caktje6fcrctc9a6uy7jlhn+uciyjh4aqoib3cwrijpa_vu_...@mail.gmail.com