Re: length of a package extended description

> This is *not* what I asked. I've complained on the long description > only. The other fields like "Depends:" are still needed, without > having them to be truncated by "less". > > This shows that any attempt to write a wrapper will fail at some > point, and the real solution would be either to l

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-20 11:59:45 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > I don't even see how it can work. Perhaps you need to explain. > > *sigh*… > > • Take output of 「apt-cache show texlive-latex-extra」 > • Replace all newlines with \x01 > • Replace all “\x01\x

Re: length of a package extended description

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I don't even see how it can work. Perhaps you need to explain. *sigh*… • Take output of 「apt-cache show texlive-latex-extra」 • Replace all newlines with \x01 • Replace all “\x01\x20” with just a space (0x20) • Replace all remaining \x01 back to newli

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-15 14:00:21 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash. > > > > > > It works with mksh, GNU bash, AT&T ksh93, zsh (Debian sid). > > > I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions

Re: length of a package extended description

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash. > > > > It works with mksh, GNU bash, AT&T ksh93, zsh (Debian sid). > > I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either. > > It didn't work on Debian sid. WFM. I suggest you t

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-13 10:22:47 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash. > > It works with mksh, GNU bash, AT&T ksh93, zsh (Debian sid). > I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either. It didn't

Re: length of a package extended description

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash. It works with mksh, GNU bash, AT&T ksh93, zsh (Debian sid). I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either. > I still want to be able to see the full "Depends:" and so on. grep-a

Re: length of a package extended description

Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2015-01-12 16:51:39) > On 2015-01-09 14:56:14 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> The blank lines are not the only problem. Removing them would be a >>> big step forward, but the description would actually still be much >>> too l

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-13 01:42:57 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2015-01-10 13:34:37 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > > Nonsense, the format is trivial and stable. > > > > I've never seen that it was stable. > > > > > A quick one-line

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-10 17:27:39 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I also think it would be best to switch that Description to use list > syntax. Daniel Burrows prepared a policy proposal some time ago, and > did some analysis: > > > >

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-09 14:56:14 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > The blank lines are not the only problem. Removing them would be a big > > step forward, but the description would actually still be much too > > long (more than 900 lines). > > Lines aren't really

Re: length of a package extended description

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2015-01-10 13:34:37 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Nonsense, the format is trivial and stable. > > I've never seen that it was stable. > > > A quick one-line-ish fix for this (requires a modern shell) is: > > > > apt-cache

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-10 13:34:37 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Nonsense, the format is trivial and stable. I've never seen that it was stable. > A quick one-line-ish fix for this (requires a modern shell) is: > > apt-cache show texlive-latex-extra | tr '\n' $'\001' | sed $'s/\001 / /g' | > tr $'\001' '

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-10 10:50:58 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: > True. I honestly think that this is such an insignificant problem that > updating the sed or perl script every so often wouldn't be that much of > a problem. But this may yield bug reports, which annoy the developers. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web:

Re: length of a package extended description

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended > > description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra! > > Sounds like a symptom of bundling lots of CTAN packages in

Re: length of a package extended description

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended > description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra! Sounds like a symptom of bundling lots of CTAN packages into one Debian package. Personally I think it would

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-11 10:37, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Don Armstrong: Every extra line is only an extra byte, after all. Empty lines, however, require three. (Space period LF) Somebody needed to point that out, of course. In compression they will most certainly map to a single byte. Yes, this would no

Re: length of a package extended description

On 01/09/2015 09:03 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: > Hi everyone, > > (I am not subscribed to Cc, due to obvious reasons, so please Cc > me any further *relevant* remarks - I don't care for the rants) > > concerning Vincent's email: he mentioned that: >> but the maintainer disagrees. > but he did no

Re: length of a package extended description

Hi! On Sun, 2015-01-11, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I think fixing translator tools would be an improvement, because it > > would reduce translator work in other situations too, by chunking the > > description on long lists (and not necess

Re: length of a package extended description

You definitely need to see/know about the surrounding context. (it might be done differently than today, but the need is there). bye Joe Danish On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover wrote: > So, no, "fixing" the "translators tools" is not an option. Whether or > not texlive-* pac

Re: length of a package extended description

On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > So, no, "fixing" the "translators tools" is not an option. Whether or > > not texlive-* packages are "too long" is a debate I already had with > > Norbert in the bug report he mentioned. He gave a rationale which > > doesn't entirely satisfi

Re: length of a package extended description

Hi, Don Armstrong: > Every extra line is only an extra byte, after all. > Empty lines, however, require three. (Space period LF) > It would probably be ideal if there was a better way of indicating which > latex modules were in each texlive package than currently, but until a > better method is

Re: length of a package extended description

Hi! On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 07:20:31 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Please also note that identifying "lists" in package descriptions > might be a very interesting thing to do, given the various way you > (maintainers) all have to make lists, given the loose rules for > writing package descriptio

Re: length of a package extended description

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > You can pipe the output to "head" or "tail" to sort of achieve what you > > want to. > > Obviously not. It may be possible with something like sed or perl, > but this may not be future-proof, and breakage due to changes in Nonsense, the format is tri

Re: length of a package extended description

Quoting Vincent Lefevre (vinc...@vinc17.net): > The issue with the translations is just a consequence, but also > just because the translators don't use a properly designed tool. I very much like such answers. Really. Short followup: patches welcomed. Please note that this is against a basecode

Re: length of a package extended description

2015-01-10 4:31 GMT+01:00 Russ Allbery : > Don Armstrong writes: > >> It would probably be ideal if there was a better way of indicating which >> latex modules were in each texlive package than currently, but until a >> better method is found, this is probably the best of bad options. > > +1. I c

Re: length of a package extended description

Don Armstrong writes: > It would probably be ideal if there was a better way of indicating which > latex modules were in each texlive package than currently, but until a > better method is found, this is probably the best of bad options. +1. I cannot overstate how useful it is to have this sort

Re: length of a package extended description

On 10/01/15 08:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2015-01-10 07:05:48 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: >>> Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as "dpkg -s") provide a >>> configurable way to limit the output of the "Description:" field? >> >> You can pipe the output to "head" or "tail" to sort of achieve wha

Re: length of a package extended description

On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > The blank lines are not the only problem. Removing them would be a big > step forward, but the description would actually still be much too > long (more than 900 lines). Lines aren't really the issue here; the primary one is space in the Packages file[

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-10 05:03:56 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > Hi everyone, > > (I am not subscribed to Cc, due to obvious reasons, so please Cc > me any further *relevant* remarks - I don't care for the rants) > > concerning Vincent's email: he mentioned that: > > but the maintainer disagrees. > but he

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-10 07:05:48 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: > > Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as "dpkg -s") provide a > > configurable way to limit the output of the "Description:" field? > > You can pipe the output to "head" or "tail" to sort of achieve what you > want to. Obviously not. It may be po

Re: length of a package extended description

> Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as "dpkg -s") provide a > configurable way to limit the output of the "Description:" field? You can pipe the output to "head" or "tail" to sort of achieve what you want to. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: length of a package extended description

Hi everyone, (I am not subscribed to Cc, due to obvious reasons, so please Cc me any further *relevant* remarks - I don't care for the rants) concerning Vincent's email: he mentioned that: > but the maintainer disagrees. but he did not mention that: * half of the package descriptions are empty li

Re: length of a package extended description

Adam Borowski writes ("Re: length of a package extended description"): > Some data: count of packages with descs of a given length: ... Here's Adam's data with cumulative package count, and cumulative percentage: > 1- 4 13772 13772 30% > 5- 9 21324 35096

Re: length of a package extended description

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended > description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra! > > Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy? Some data: count of packages with descs o

Re: length of a package extended description

On 2015-01-09 16:02:52 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Vincent, perhaps you would care to file a bug with a patch which > reduces the description to a plausible size ? I reported https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=774942 but the maintainer disagrees. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web:

Re: length of a package extended description

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended > description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra! > > Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy? > > Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such

Re: length of a package extended description

Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: length of a package extended description"): > On Jan 09, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy? > > Shouldn't the length be limited by common sense? Yes. > In this case I think that l

Re: length of a package extended description

On Jan 09, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy? Shouldn't the length be limited by common sense? In this case I think that listing the packages without the description of each one would be enough... -- ciao, Marco pgpbuMAQ6Ch9n.pgp Description: PGP s

length of a package extended description

Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra! Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy? Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as "dpkg -s") provide a configurable way to limit the output of the "Descript