On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> I dunno, but I am working on expanding uqm-content's 6 lines to
> something more appropriate to its number of files (11.5 thousand). Maybe
> .. 600 lines?
>
> Now I'm really glad uqm-voice (100+ mb) is not going into the archive
> anytime soon. I have more i
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:46:19AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:15:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> >
> >>>Not all of it, but you can't object to duplicating a single sent
Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Dan Jacobson may or may not have written...
>
> > I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> > package justice by giving an adequate description.
>
> "I have here a 20K package. Should it have a 1/3-line description?"
I dunno, but I
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:12:06AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
>
> Too bad. The two are not, should not, and should never be related.
I wouldn't say they're strictly decorrelate
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:17:27PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
Read mine sometime. (You'd be one of the first to do so!)
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian GNU/Linux
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:15:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
>
>>>Not all of it, but you can't object to duplicating a single sentence saying
>>>what it is.
>>
>>When the sentence in question is the one that goes in the short
>>descripti
I demand that Dan Jacobson may or may not have written...
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
"I have here a 20K package. Should it have a 1/3-line description?"
;-)
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | l
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:07:46AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Anyway, one liner "snob" descriptions just have to go.
>
> $ apt-cache show emacs21
> Description: The GNU Emacs editor
> GNU Emacs is the extensible self-documenting text editor.
>
> Oops, I see, it is self-documenting.
that's act
>> avg. bytes per description lines 66321.8
A> Is that just a meaningless number, or is there actually a correlation
A> between package size and description length?
Somebody with statistics experience might go further and see if little
packages have big descriptions and visa versa etc.
Anyway, o
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:15:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one
> > > > source file
> >
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:15:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> > Not all of it, but you can't object to duplicating a single sentence saying
> > what it is.
>
> When the sentence in question is the one that goes in the short
> description, and already fills the a
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one
> > > source file
> > > which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libf
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one source
> > file
> > which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libfoo",
> > libfoo-doc = "documention for libfoo", and libfoo = "runtime
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:56:03PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one source
> file
> which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libfoo",
> libfoo-doc = "documention for libfoo", and libfoo = "runtime files for fo
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 09:10:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:56:42AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > Fellas, looking in the Packages files, some big packages have little
> > descriptions, some little packages have big descriptions,
>
> and this package description w
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
The description is adequate. The size of the package has nothing to do
with it.
> The Packages file could very well be the source
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
Too bad. The two are not, should not, and should never be related.
Stephen
pgpiYTdDuqfg2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Dan Jacobson writes:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
While extremely short descriptions might be a cause for concern regardless
of the size of the package, I don't see why larger packages should need
longe
Re: Re: [devel] Packages: an average 66321 bytes per line of description [Dan
Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:17:27PM +0800, <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>]
> I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
Where are the statistics for that? Yo
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:29:23PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
File wishlist bugs with a patch for the long description then.
Michael
I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
package justice by giving an adequate description.
The Packages file could very well be the source for decisions on what
gets chosen or not for ones system.
I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:56:42AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Fellas, looking in the Packages files, some big packages have little
> descriptions, some little packages have big descriptions,
and this package description went wee wee wee, all the way home.
Why does this belong on debian-devel i
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Fellas, looking in the Packages files, some big packages have little
> descriptions, some little packages have big descriptions, but on the average,
> 11938 packages
> avg size 510963
> avg description 7.70431 lines
> avg. bytes per description lines 6632
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> For instance, the prestigious emacs21 needs only one line, as
> everybody who is anybody is supposed to know what it is all about.
Yup. Don't see any problem with that either. Have a day.
Stephen
pgpQddrICotFS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Fellas, looking in the Packages files, some big packages have little
descriptions, some little packages have big descriptions, but on the average,
11938 packages
avg size 510963
avg description 7.70431 lines
avg. bytes per description lines 66321.8
For instance, the prestigious emacs21 needs only
26 matches
Mail list logo
