| 1 |
On Thursday 22 May 2003 20:56, Dylan Carlson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu May 22 2003 2:34 pm, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > This is why you also get the URL, so you can find out for yourself. I'm |
| 4 |
> > not in favor of adding a "long" description as other package formats do, |
| 5 |
> > although I won't object -- this is just my personal opinion. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm glad someone else brought it up. And since it's been mentioned, I want |
| 8 |
> to say I support the idea of a long description. The short descriptions |
| 9 |
> should be under a fixed number of characters, and the long-descriptions |
| 10 |
> should be allowed as many characters as needed to describe the package |
| 11 |
> completely. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> And some packages do in fact need a lot of explanation. The existing |
| 14 |
> DESCRIPTION metadata is not sufficient, and ebuild comments nor ChangeLog |
| 15 |
> entries are adequate for this. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It's one area that *BSD ports have an advantage (imo). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
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 |
| 21 |
though that a description file might be more appropriate than putting the |
| 22 |
long description in the ebuild. A package description should always be the |
| 23 |
same I feel, even over versions. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Paul |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 29 |
Researcher |
| 30 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 31 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives