| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 09:02:36PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 5 |
> My biggest point against long descriptions is the fact they need to be |
| 6 |
> written. That is not such a big point if the users will do it. I do think |
| 7 |
> though that a description file might be more appropriate than putting the |
| 8 |
> long description in the ebuild. A package description should always be the |
| 9 |
> same I feel, even over versions. |
| 10 |
oh come on! during my stint as a developer for a Linux distribution that |
| 11 |
shall not be named, writing the long description was very little work |
| 12 |
indeed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
keeping the packages bug free took up way more time. i don't think the |
| 15 |
time taken to write a long description is a valid point against it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
that said, I'm not sure how much use a long description would be to me. |
| 18 |
the DESCRIPTION, along with the category/group, give me enough of a |
| 19 |
context to be able to fill in the blanks for most ebuilds. the only |
| 20 |
time I've actually read the description on other distributions was when |
| 21 |
browsing using a GUI tool :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
leon |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
- -- |
| 26 |
in the beginning, was the code. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iD8DBQE+znk0RWcl5mzp4f4RAtV8AKDH3eBpPdruFdSx0LJLcRt+aljfnACgyYZ4 |
| 32 |
yNqA7tFx0QXHJQYFTtHJOT4= |
| 33 |
=61FW |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives