FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-23-2008, 08:17 AM
Richard Hughes
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 19:33 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Richard Hughes [22/11/2008 15:38] :
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 20:49 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, how much is "Many"?
> >
> > At the moment, one.
>
> FWIW, I don't appreciate our maintainers being lied to.

<snip>

> > So it's not just a case of it being shown prominently in "one"
> > application at all.
>
> But it is a case of changing one application versus changing 500.

That's not the point. PackageKit isn't going to change to show the name
more prominently than the description. PackageKit _is_ going to be
integrated more places, and the user _is_ going to see PackageKit
dialogs in more places than they see it now.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 08:26 AM
Richard Hughes
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 18:56 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Also your "simple hacky tool" produces a lot of false positives:
> * acpi Command-line ACPI client (try to remove ACPI from
> summary)
> * barcode generates barcodes from text strings
> * ccid Generic USB CCID smart card reader driver
> * contacts Contacts addressbook
> * dialog A utility for creating TTY dialog boxes
> The problem with these packages it not the summary but the generic
> name of the package. This is something we cannot change.

Right, some of those are false positives, but "Contacts addressbook"
could quite easily become "Easy to use address book" -- I guess it's
mainly preference.

> More examples of false positives:
> * asylum SDL port of the game Asylum, originally for the

What's so important about SDL? What is the game? What if i've never
played Asylum? Is is a platform game or a shoot-em-up?

> Archimedes (try to remove the name here: A port of what?)
> * audit User space tools for 2.6 kernel auditing
> * calc Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
> * dia Diagram drawing program
> * ed The GNU line editor
> * eject A program that ejects removable media using software
> control.

"A program that ejects removable media" -- but I agree the others are
false positives.

> I'm not criticizing your script, I just want to point out that it's
> not as many packages as you might think and for others there is
> nothing we can do about it.

You've every right to complain about my script, it is a cheap hack, and
the first (and probably last time) I'll try to contact package
maintainers directly.

Before I sent the emails, I followed all the giudelines people gave me.
For reference, nobody told me before in any of the 200+ posts to include
the FAS username, and I was told to email pkname-owner rather than the
fas owner email address.

If I spammed people; I apologise. As a point of interest, _tons_ of
people have modified spec files in the last 24 hours, so I consider the
activity worthwhile, even if some people are pretty pissed off at me.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 09:04 AM
"Andrea Musuruane"
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

2008/11/23 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com>:
> Many, *many* people (except for fan-boys and people who are told to search
> for a specific brand) don't care at all about the name of a program when
> searching for a program. When they see the word "Thunar" it doesn't ring
> any bell. Instead, it makes them nervous as they don't know whether it
> matters to know what "Thunar". It could also be a special environment
> which they don't know and don't want. Adding the program name makes such a
> summary (and in turn the package) less attractive to these people. With
> the shorter summary "File manager" they are more willing to try out the
> software they don't know yet.

If what you say was true nobody would search and use Microsoft Office,
Adobe Photoshop, Internet Explorer, Oracle and even Coca Cola.

Sorry, you are plain wrong about this. We live in a world of branding,
where branding recognition is important and it starts from the name.

Many Open Source organization do branding too! Firefox, Samba, Fedora
and MySQL and brands and their controlling organizations promote these
brands.

Regards,

Andrea.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 09:21 AM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Friday 21 November 2008, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > Leaving gnome-packagekit's current UI aside, is repeating the package
> > name in summary something that people would rather not see done in any
> > case? I tend to think that it'd be better to not repeat it myself. Just
> > asking in case there's clear consensus on this - this is something that
> > would be trivial to check in rpmlint.
>
> +1

The consensus doesn't seem to be entirely clear but I added the check anyway
in upstream rpmlint svn. Its output can always be filtered out later if
needed.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 09:22 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 09:15 +0000, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 20:49 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > There are lots of stuff that could be improved in packages matadata,
> > (like killing the funny camelcase names), and others did go the hard
> > FPC route before firing XXX mails.
>
> I just went ahead painted the bike shed. Apologies if this cause
> offence.

No offense, it's human, but please go through FPC before asking a lot of
packagers to do changes.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 09:39 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 12:21 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :

> The consensus doesn't seem to be entirely clear

Meaning there are none

> but I added the check anyway

Please do not add checks to rpmlint which have not been reviewed by FPC.
Packagers are taking rpmlint output as authoritative and I don't see why
we should bother with FPC at all if you're taking policy in your hands.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 10:18 AM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Am Samstag, den 22.11.2008, 19:33 +0100 schrieb Emmanuel Seyman:
> * Richard Hughes [22/11/2008 15:38] :
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 20:49 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, how much is "Many"?
> >
> > At the moment, one.
>
> FWIW, I don't appreciate our maintainers being lied to. The vast
> majority of them work hard to make their packages and I believe that a
> minimum of respect should be shown.

Sorry, but so should you. Richard is one of the most productive Fedora
developers, so "working hard" also applies to him. It is ridiculous to
accuse him of lying, especially because he was right: From a user's POV
there are several apps. Not only (gnome-)packagekit, think of synaptic
for example.

> > So it's not just a case of it being shown prominently in "one"
> > application at all.
>
> But it is a case of changing one application versus changing 500.

Although I disagree with Richard in some details, he is right that we
need better summaries. A lot of summaries start "foo is a...." wich is
just useless. The summaries should be unified and it does not really
matter how much packages are affected. The larger the number is, the
more important it is.

> Emmanuel

Regards,
Christoph

[1]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Synaptic_Package_Manager.png

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 11:53 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:53:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> address how to describe subpackages. I'm less than convinced that
> it would be productive to avoid using "MySQL" in the subpackage
> descriptions.

Yes, known thing. Sub-packages usually create a reference to a main package.
And then it's hard to not mention the package %{name} or program name.

With "postgresql" (albeit not limited to postgresql) the added difficulty
is that the main package contains only parts of the suite. The server files
are in another package. Else the main package could be have the summary:

Advanced Object-Relational database management system using SQL

Yeah, have fun with finding multiple summaries that describe the
sub-packages then.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 11:59 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:04:13 +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote:

> > Many, *many* people (except for fan-boys and people who are told to search
> > for a specific brand) don't care at all about the name of a program when
> > searching for a program. When they see the word "Thunar" it doesn't ring
> > any bell. Instead, it makes them nervous as they don't know whether it
> > matters to know what "Thunar". It could also be a special environment
> > which they don't know and don't want. Adding the program name makes such a
> > summary (and in turn the package) less attractive to these people. With
> > the shorter summary "File manager" they are more willing to try out the
> > software they don't know yet.
>
> If what you say was true nobody would search and use Microsoft Office,
> Adobe Photoshop, Internet Explorer, Oracle and even Coca Cola.
>
> Sorry, you are plain wrong about this. We live in a world of branding,
> where branding recognition is important and it starts from the name.
>
> Many Open Source organization do branding too! Firefox, Samba, Fedora
> and MySQL and brands and their controlling organizations promote these
> brands.

You're missing the point, however. I don't say branding isn't done.
I don't say that brand recognition is unimportant to some vendors.
I don't say that users never learn all the different names and brands.

I'm talking about beginners, the newbie-friendliness of Fedora, and
the interface to the growing number of packages in the repositories.
About [Fedora] Linux newbies, who are confronted with (1) the task of
finding the counter-piece for every program they are familiar with on the
platform they've used before and (2) the task of finding new programs in
an overwhelming collection of several thousand packages or in a default
installation.

Give them a task, such as resizing an image. They won't search for a
specific program name, but for generic terms and phrases. "Image viewer",
"resize images", "image manipulation". They won't find "Photoshop" or
"IrfanView" anyway. "AbiWord" (which is a trademark) is advertised
upstream as "a free word processing program similar to Microsoft® Word".
They won't find it with a %summary that doesn't mention "Microsoft Word",
but they find it when searching for "word processing". For many types of
programs, the Open Source solution has a different name than what users,
who come from other platforms, are used to. Don't hide in the small world,
where you know all the sometimes weird names and acronyms for lots of
packages.

Samba -- a great example. Its summary says "The Samba Suite of programs",
which won't be found by any user who wants to set up "a network share" or
"share a printer". Only by searching and reading the package description,
which expands on what the Samba suite does, they would recognise this
package as one they might want.

It's all different the more experienced [and or knowledgeable] a user is.
Indeed, an experienced user would search for specific database suites,
such as PostgreSQL or MySQL. These users would be satisfied with a simple
mapping of package names to program names/acronyms:

firefox : Mozilla Firefox
gcc : GCC
gedit : gedit
gthumb : gThumb
mysql : MySQL
postgresql : PostgreSQL



It isn't trivial to come up with good one-line summaries that do more than
repeating the program name. It's nothing packagers like to spend time on.
Reducing a packager's freedom even further won't be a good thing. The
size limit is hard enough already for some packages and sub-packages.
Why is

gedit : gEdit is a small but powerful text editor for GNOME

better than

gedit : Small but powerful text editor for the GNOME desktop

? (btw, upstream calls it "gedit" not "gEdit")

I think with some people one could argue endlessly about pkg summaries.
And during pkg reviews that's wasted time. Still, with very old repositories
it has been noticed [and agreed on, mostly] that some types of summaries
simply look poor in Anaconda and package management tools. That was the
rationale for some of the recommendations.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-23-2008, 12:01 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 09:26 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 18:56 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Also your "simple hacky tool" produces a lot of false positives:
> > * acpi Command-line ACPI client (try to remove ACPI from
> > summary)
> > * barcode generates barcodes from text strings
> > * ccid Generic USB CCID smart card reader driver
> > * contacts Contacts addressbook
> > * dialog A utility for creating TTY dialog boxes
> > The problem with these packages it not the summary but the generic
> > name of the package. This is something we cannot change.
>
> Right, some of those are false positives, but "Contacts addressbook"
> could quite easily become "Easy to use address book"
Any program claims to be "easy to use", no matter how broken it's UI may
be.


> As a point of interest, _tons_ of
> people have modified spec files in the last 24 hours, so I consider the
> activity worthwhile, even if some people are pretty pissed off at me.
IMO, you are painting bike sheds and wasting people's time.



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org