Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:35:07AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: >On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:34:04PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote: >> Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any >> kernel patches. >> >>L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only >>the LNS side of the connection. > >For us mere mortals, please state whether this thing initiates or >accepts connections. "LNS" doesn't ring any bell for me. I would propose the following: Description: Layer 2 tunneling protocol network server (LNS) l2tpns is a daemon designed to terminate large volumes of layer 2 tunneling protocol (RFC 2661: L2TP) sessions. . The daemon supports up to 65535 sessions plus features such as rate limiting, walled garden, usage accounting, and clustering (for both load-sharing and redundancy). . Note that only the LNS side of the L2TP protocol is implemented, for a more complete L2TP implementation see the l2tpd package. --bod
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 12:17:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> >> To my taste, this description contains too many abbreviations, and is >> >> only understandable for someone who already knows what they mean. Please >> >> follow the general guidelines for descriptions, >> > "The package description should be written for the average likely user" >> > >> > The average likely user should know what L2TP is and understand the >> > LNSes role in this. >> No, I don't think so. I think that "the average likely user" is meant >> to be an average user of Debian, not the user of the package. This is >> logical, because the purpose of the description is to allow a user to >> decide whether he *is* the target user of the package. > > If the user doesn't understand the package description, is it not > reasonable to assume they'll work out it's probably not for them? No, it is not reasonable. There *are* lots of crappy^Wbad descriptions around, and for a user it is, unfortunately, very reasonable to assume that the solution to her/his problem lies in a package whose descriptions she doesn't understand at all. Your package would add one more that she'd have to check. > If I > went searching for something and found a handful of packages, some of > which had many terms I didn't understand while the others did, I'd > assume that some of the packages weren't appropriate to what I wanted. Or that they had simply bad descriptions. > Must we dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator rather > than assuming our users have some level of intellegence? This is not a question of intelligence. If you don't know anything about chemistry, but you want to buy a chemistry experimentation kit for your 14 year old son or daughter (who is fond of chemistry and has yet read lots of books), shouldn't the box of the kit tell _you_ whether it makes sense to buy this one, or whether it will be much too easy or dangerous for him/her? If you don't understand it - do you have a problem with your intelligence? No. Don't take this as an analogy for your package description - there might be packages an admin installs on user request without knowing them, but yours is not one of these. But take it as a hint that it is not about intelligence. > Would you be satisfied with "This package is not intended for users who > want to setup a local dialup or similar connection; you probably want > the ppp package instead." as the first paragraph of the description? Or > perhaps "This package is aimed at those who need to terminate a large > number of L2TP sessions; if you're a home user you probably want the ppp > package". Yes, that would be appropriate. Andreas suggestion sounds even better to me, because it is not longer, but has the additional information what L2TPNS is. > I'm sorry, I disagree. PPP and ISP are commonly used terms and L2TP/LNS > should be familiar to the users of the package. Yes, PPP and ISP are common (although ISP is much less common for non-english speaking users). But if, by the will of the gods of regexp matching, a package shows up in a totally different context, the abbreviations might have a totally different meaning in that context. If an abbreviation can be avoided, it should be. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 03:34:45PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 12:17:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> To my taste, this description contains too many abbreviations, and is > >> only understandable for someone who already knows what they mean. Please > >> follow the general guidelines for descriptions, > > "The package description should be written for the average likely user" > > > > The average likely user should know what L2TP is and understand the > > LNSes role in this. > No, I don't think so. I think that "the average likely user" is meant > to be an average user of Debian, not the user of the package. This is > logical, because the purpose of the description is to allow a user to > decide whether he *is* the target user of the package. If the user doesn't understand the package description, is it not reasonable to assume they'll work out it's probably not for them? If I went searching for something and found a handful of packages, some of which had many terms I didn't understand while the others did, I'd assume that some of the packages weren't appropriate to what I wanted. Must we dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator rather than assuming our users have some level of intellegence? > Did you read the complete paragraph? It explains its intention with an > example: > > , > | Avoid referring to other applications or frameworks that the user > | might not be familiar with ? "GNOME" or "KDE" is fine, since users are > | probably familiar with these terms, but "GTK+" is probably not. Try > | not to assume any knowledge at all. If you must use technical terms, > | introduce them. > ` > > If GTK+ is not acceptable, how can l2tpd, l2tp and lns be? They could, > if you _first_ state clearly that the package is only aimed at people > experienced in some type of network setup. Any user who wants to do > something about her dialup connection and enters "apt-cache search ppp" > should immediately know whether the package might be useful (perhaps > after some or a lot of reading) or whether it is about something > different. I would argue that the majority of people using GTK+ apps are going to be wanting pointy clicky front ends and thus not necessarily know or care what GTK+ is. Would you be satisfied with "This package is not intended for users who want to setup a local dialup or similar connection; you probably want the ppp package instead." as the first paragraph of the description? Or perhaps "This package is aimed at those who need to terminate a large number of L2TP sessions; if you're a home user you probably want the ppp package". > > (And the only abbreviations I count in the description are L2TP [which > > gets expanded], LNS, PPP and ISP.) > That's about 3 to 4 too much. Generally, because of good style, > not because they are unfamiliar to me. I'm sorry, I disagree. PPP and ISP are commonly used terms and L2TP/LNS should be familiar to the users of the package. J. -- Revd. Jonathan McDowell, ULC | Don't be a stranger.
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 12:17:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> > Package: wnpp >> > Severity: wishlist >> > >> > * Package name: l2tpns >> > Version : 2.0.5 >> > Upstream Author : David Parrish and others <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > * URL : http://l2tpns.sf.net/ >> > * License : GPL >> > Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any >> > kernel patches. >> > >> >L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only >> >the LNS side of the connection. >> [...] >> >> To my taste, this description contains too many abbreviations, and is >> only understandable for someone who already knows what they mean. Please >> follow the general guidelines for descriptions, >> >> file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-desc-basics > > This says: > > "The package description should be written for the average likely user" > > The average likely user should know what L2TP is and understand the > LNSes role in this. No, I don't think so. I think that "the average likely user" is meant to be an average user of Debian, not the user of the package. This is logical, because the purpose of the description is to allow a user to decide whether he *is* the target user of the package. Did you read the complete paragraph? It explains its intention with an example: , | Avoid referring to other applications or frameworks that the user | might not be familiar with ? "GNOME" or "KDE" is fine, since users are | probably familiar with these terms, but "GTK+" is probably not. Try | not to assume any knowledge at all. If you must use technical terms, | introduce them. ` If GTK+ is not acceptable, how can l2tpd, l2tp and lns be? They could, if you _first_ state clearly that the package is only aimed at people experienced in some type of network setup. Any user who wants to do something about her dialup connection and enters "apt-cache search ppp" should immediately know whether the package might be useful (perhaps after some or a lot of reading) or whether it is about something different. > (And the only abbreviations I count in the description are L2TP [which > gets expanded], LNS, PPP and ISP.) That's about 3 to 4 too much. Generally, because of good style, not because they are unfamiliar to me. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 12:17:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > > > * Package name: l2tpns > > Version : 2.0.5 > > Upstream Author : David Parrish and others <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://l2tpns.sf.net/ > > * License : GPL > > Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any > > kernel patches. > > > >L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only > >the LNS side of the connection. > [...] > > To my taste, this description contains too many abbreviations, and is > only understandable for someone who already knows what they mean. Please > follow the general guidelines for descriptions, > > file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-desc-basics This says: "The package description should be written for the average likely user" The average likely user should know what L2TP is and understand the LNSes role in this. I don't think that any of the terms used wouldn't be understood by the sort of person this package is useful for. (And the only abbreviations I count in the description are L2TP [which gets expanded], LNS, PPP and ISP.) J. -- jid: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can I trade this job for what's behind door 2?
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
Jonathan McDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: l2tpns > Version : 2.0.5 > Upstream Author : David Parrish and others <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://l2tpns.sf.net/ > * License : GPL > Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any kernel > patches. > >L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only >the LNS side of the connection. [...] To my taste, this description contains too many abbreviations, and is only understandable for someone who already knows what they mean. Please follow the general guidelines for descriptions, file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-desc-basics Thanks, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:35:07AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:34:04PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > > Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any > > kernel patches. > > > >L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only > >the LNS side of the connection. > > For us mere mortals, please state whether this thing initiates or > accepts connections. "LNS" doesn't ring any bell for me. I don't think LNS is an obscure term in regards to L2TP connections; all the providers I've talked to about L2TP have used the term and also lots of the documentation on the web; a simple Google search turns up many results for "lns l2tp". I don't think it should be the job of the Debian package description to define these sorts of terms; the sort of people who have a need for this package should already know what an LNS is. > >Also supports ISP features like speed throttling, walled garden, usage > >accounting, and more. > The same here: what is a "walled garden" in the context of L2TP? Again, I don't think this is that rare a term: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/walled_garden.html J. -- "Why 'maybe' for everything?" "I'm | Black Cat Networks Ltd using fluffy logic." | http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ | UK Web, domain and email hosting
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:34:04PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any kernel > patches. > >L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only >the LNS side of the connection. For us mere mortals, please state whether this thing initiates or accepts connections. "LNS" doesn't ring any bell for me. Perhaps contrasting this package agains l2tpd is worth a paragraph too. >Also supports ISP features like speed throttling, walled garden, usage >accounting, and more. The same here: what is a "walled garden" in the context of L2TP? Thank you for your time and work! Regards, David -- * Customer: "My palmtop won't turn on." * Tech Support: "Did the battery run out, maybe?" * Customer: "No, it doesn't use batteries. It's Windows powered." -- http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_power.shtml
Bug#280675: ITP: l2tpns
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: l2tpns Version : 2.0.5 Upstream Author : David Parrish and others <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://l2tpns.sf.net/ * License : GPL Description : L2TP LNS which does not require l2tpd, pppd or any kernel patches. L2TPNS is half of a complete L2TP implementation. It supports only the LNS side of the connection. L2TP (Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol) is designed to allow any layer 2 protocol (e.g. Ethernet, PPP) to be tunneled over an IP connection. L2TPNS implements PPP over L2TP only. Also supports ISP features like speed throttling, walled garden, usage accounting, and more. (This will require libcli, which I ITPed earlier today as #280611) J. -- Too many freaks, not enough circuses. [ Black Cat Networks ] [ 0845 PAYG dialup ] [ ADSL from £20+VAT/month ] [ http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ ]
