RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

[Till Maas]

On Fri November 21 2008, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Also all the differen summaries for media players above do not really
> > provide much information that allows to distinguish them, e.g. is the
> > gstreamer based media player or the player from Mozilla not feature rich
> > or customizable? I don't know, but the summary does not really help here.
>
> I agree with your other points.  This one is tough, though.  If all of
> the media players are customizable and feature rich then what sets yours
> apart?  That it comes from a recognizable brand name (Mozilla). That the
> goal of the project upstream is to be "customizable".  You can't encode
> a complete user-experience in the Summary but you can try to encode
> enough that someone will read the description to find out more.

I don't know which media player was meant by each description, but here are 
some sample features that may make it easier to distinguish media players:

- For commandline usage (mplayer)
- lightweight (e.g. an XFCE media player, if there is one)
- only for audio (afaik this matches amarok)
- support for protable media devices / podcasts (feature of amarok)
- frontend for mplayer
- manager for audio files (amarok)
- is it for GNOME / KDE / XFCE / whatever?
- Remote control support
- support for DJing, e.g. mixing from one file into another
- intended to be used with touchscreens or on home entertainment systems

Here are some examples of summaries I would like:

amarok:
- Audio player and manager for KDE with podcast support

mplayer:
- commandline audio and video player

kmplayer (does it exist?):
- KDE frontend for mplayer, an audio and video player

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081121/a3e7ad11/attachment.sig>