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 11-20-2008, 04:47 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:40:29 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:

> For instance, the following are over long, or repeat the program name:
>
> * System daemon that is a DBUS abstraction layer for package management
> * XQilla is an XQuery and XPath 2.0 library, built on top of Xerces-C
> * DeVeDe is a program to create video DVDs and CDs (VCD, sVCD or CVD)
>
> The following would be good replacements:
>
> * Package management framework
> * XQuery and XPath 2.0 library
> * Create video DVDs and CDs
>
> How does that sound? Anyone got any better words?

Sounds good. I think you've understood the purpose of %summary.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 04:47 PM
James Antill
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:33 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> The packaging guidelines have a single sentence on package summaries:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>
> "The summary should be a short and concise description of the package"
>
> Broken packages are a problem as PackageKit shows the summary first (in
> bold) in preference to the package name. This is by design.

What is the rationale for this design? Just a guess that it's better?

> Quite a lot of packages have summary text that is overly verbose, and
> this makes the GUI and output from pkcon look rubbish.
>
> For instance, I've filed
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472365 where the oggconvert
> package has a summary of:
>
> "A simple GNOME application that converts media files to Free formats"
>
> First, we don't need to say it's an application, not that it's GNOME
> specific. Surely something like this would be better:
>
> "Simple media converter"
> or
> "Simple conversion to free media formats"
> or
> "Simple media converter using free formats"

Why is "simple" a useful word, but GNOME isn't? For someone using a
GNOME desktop I could see the later being much more helpful.
Also, as someone else mentioned:

PackageKit.x86_64 : System daemon that is a DBUS abstraction layer for package
: management

..."abstraction layer" seems more wordy than needed, also "system
daemon" seems redundant:

PackageKit.x86_64 : DBUS daemon for package management

...a list of stop words like that, might be useful ... or even better
someone should get a librarian involved in Fedora

--
James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:13 PM
Olivier Galibert
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 05:40:29PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> For instance, the following are over long, or repeat the program name:
>
> * System daemon that is a DBUS abstraction layer for package management
> * XQilla is an XQuery and XPath 2.0 library, built on top of Xerces-C
> * DeVeDe is a program to create video DVDs and CDs (VCD, sVCD or CVD)
>
> The following would be good replacements:
>
> * Package management framework
> * XQuery and XPath 2.0 library
> * Create video DVDs and CDs
>
> How does that sound? Anyone got any better words?

For XQilla the "Xerces-C" part is a first-order discrimination
information because it tells you whether you will be able to use the
library. You can still shorten it to "XQuery and XPath 2.0 library
for Xerces-C". I mean, it could be "java", "python", or
"lambda-prolog" instead, and that changes everything :-)

OG.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:16 PM
"Arthur Pemberton"
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:47 AM, James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:33 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> The packaging guidelines have a single sentence on package summaries:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
>>
>> "The summary should be a short and concise description of the package"
>>
>> Broken packages are a problem as PackageKit shows the summary first (in
>> bold) in preference to the package name. This is by design.
>
> What is the rationale for this design? Just a guess that it's better?
>
>> Quite a lot of packages have summary text that is overly verbose, and
>> this makes the GUI and output from pkcon look rubbish.
>>
>> For instance, I've filed
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472365 where the oggconvert
>> package has a summary of:
>>
>> "A simple GNOME application that converts media files to Free formats"
>>
>> First, we don't need to say it's an application, not that it's GNOME
>> specific. Surely something like this would be better:
>>
>> "Simple media converter"
>> or
>> "Simple conversion to free media formats"
>> or
>> "Simple media converter using free formats"
>
> Why is "simple" a useful word, but GNOME isn't? For someone using a
> GNOME desktop I could see the later being much more helpful.
> Also, as someone else mentioned:

Well a user may want a simple tool, as opposed to an advanced tool.
And for said user, Gnome may be irrelevant.

Also, uses GTK doesn't necessarily mean Gnome. However, if a package
is going to pull in Gnome libs, would be nice to know that in the
summary.


--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:18 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:28:50AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>Josh Boyer (jwboyer@gmail.com) said:
>> >I'm not sure this scales across 5000 packages. So it would be good
>> >to have at least *something* in the guidelines.
>>
>> You're assuming that all 5000 packages need fixing. I doubt that's
>> the case.
>
>No, but it's not something you can easily automate (unlike
>FTBFS, or broken deps.)
>
>> Also, the bugs need to be filed either way. So the scaling argument
>> still applies and adding a guideline for this is really just unneeded
>> work...
>
>If you get it fixed in the guidelines and at the review point, you
>eliminate having to scan & file all those bugs later - always fix
>issues as early as possible.

The guidelines already say 'brief'. Quantifying what that means is all
that a new guideline would be doing.

And you're also assuming that packages strictly adhere to the guidelines
after they are reviewed, but that is a whole different can of worms.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:33 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Richard Hughes (hughsient@gmail.com) said:
> The following would be good replacements:
>
> * Package management framework
> * XQuery and XPath 2.0 library
> * Create video DVDs and CDs
>
> How does that sound? Anyone got any better words?

My one concern is that with something like the last one, you're likely
to run into summary collision.

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:36 PM
"Arthur Pemberton"
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
> Richard Hughes (hughsient@gmail.com) said:
>> The following would be good replacements:
>>
>> * Package management framework
>> * XQuery and XPath 2.0 library
>> * Create video DVDs and CDs
>>
>> How does that sound? Anyone got any better words?
>
> My one concern is that with something like the last one, you're likely
> to run into summary collision.


True. It isn't immediately clear to me if that is a bad thing though.

--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:52 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:16:42 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:

> >> Quite a lot of packages have summary text that is overly verbose, and
> >> this makes the GUI and output from pkcon look rubbish.
> >>
> >> For instance, I've filed
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472365 where the oggconvert
> >> package has a summary of:
> >>
> >> "A simple GNOME application that converts media files to Free formats"
> >>
> >> First, we don't need to say it's an application, not that it's GNOME
> >> specific. Surely something like this would be better:
> >>
> >> "Simple media converter"
> >> or
> >> "Simple conversion to free media formats"
> >> or
> >> "Simple media converter using free formats"
> >
> > Why is "simple" a useful word, but GNOME isn't? For someone using a
> > GNOME desktop I could see the later being much more helpful.
> > Also, as someone else mentioned:
>
> Well a user may want a simple tool, as opposed to an advanced tool.
> And for said user, Gnome may be irrelevant.

This is splitting-hairs. A user with special requirements (= low resource
usage, short dependency chain) could query details about a package or
attempt installation and stop as soon as the total size is known. Btw, an
application could be simple and still use various frameworks which result
in a long dependency chain.

> Also, uses GTK doesn't necessarily mean Gnome. However, if a package
> is going to pull in Gnome libs, would be nice to know that in the
> summary.

It's a pain to maintain such summaries, though. Imagine, first it uses a
standalone library. Later the library is developed further and enhanced
to communicate with desktop services.

It's much more important to sum up what a package does than to sum up
what frameworks it is built with. Details can go into description blocks
and may be examined with package resolvers.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:57 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:33:06 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Richard Hughes said:
> > The following would be good replacements:
> >
> > * Package management framework
> > * XQuery and XPath 2.0 library
> > * Create video DVDs and CDs
> >
> > How does that sound? Anyone got any better words?
>
> My one concern is that with something like the last one, you're likely
> to run into summary collision.

Really? In lists where %name and %summary are displayed next to eachother?

devede : Create video DVDs and CDs

instead of:

devede : DeVeDe is a program to create video DVDs and CDs (VCD, sVCD or CVD)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:58 PM
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
 
Default RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 17:40 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> * Create video DVDs and CDs

This is a verb phrase. Summaries should probably be a noun phrase:

* Simple video DVD and CD authoring software

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
--
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 11:49 PM.

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