From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 938 invoked by uid 1002); 22 May 2003 19:02:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 26601 invoked from network); 22 May 2003 19:02:40 -0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 21:02:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <200305222012.06989.vadim_t@teleline.es> <20030522183405.GB3208@Daikan.pandora.be> <200305221456.34972.absinthe@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200305221456.34972.absinthe@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_N7Rz+q0Ydw96Kqi"; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200305222102.37444.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.4 required=5.0 X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Horrible package descriptions X-Archives-Salt: 210f21b5-7484-4f7e-9ee1-ac0c366d80ca X-Archives-Hash: e7b6d5ada95a272b45049d5388218aab --Boundary-02=_N7Rz+q0Ydw96Kqi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 22 May 2003 20:56, Dylan Carlson wrote: > On Thu May 22 2003 2:34 pm, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > This is why you also get the URL, so you can find out for yourself. I'm > > not in favor of adding a "long" description as other package formats do, > > although I won't object -- this is just my personal opinion. > > I'm glad someone else brought it up. And since it's been mentioned, I wa= nt > to say I support the idea of a long description. The short descriptions > should be under a fixed number of characters, and the long-descriptions > should be allowed as many characters as needed to describe the package > completely. > > And some packages do in fact need a lot of explanation. The existing > DESCRIPTION metadata is not sufficient, and ebuild comments nor ChangeLog > entries are adequate for this. > > It's one area that *BSD ports have an advantage (imo). My biggest point against long descriptions is the fact they need to be=20 written. That is not such a big point if the users will do it. I do think=20 though that a description file might be more appropriate than putting the=20 long description in the ebuild. A package description should always be the= =20 same I feel, even over versions. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Researcher Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_N7Rz+q0Ydw96Kqi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+zR7NbKx5DBjWFdsRArzbAJsHWlFo0OfwBDjeRNXBL80xt1opWQCgwwb8 uON15lk0XzJRhj1sGMKTo8Q= =JB2K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_N7Rz+q0Ydw96Kqi--