RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Till Maas opensource at till.name
Fri Nov 21 22:39:52 UTC 2008


On Fri November 21 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 23:06 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri November 21 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > > How about "DBUS-based package management service"?
> > >
> > > Is the fact that it uses D-Bus *really* that important to an end user
> > > to warrant putting it in the summary?
> >
> > It is the only fact I know about it that makes it special. I do not
> > really know what it does, but as far as I understand it is like yum-cron,
> > except that it triggers an action not periodically but via an dbus-event,
> > e.g. when the yum metadata was refreshed or when the system got network
> > access. But I do not really know which package is it, but this is what I
> > experienced on live systems and it seems to match the description.
>
> Then perhaps it's not special at all. Maybe it *shouldn't* really
> "exist" in the end-user's mind outside of gnome-packagekit and/or
> KPackageKit.

If the package should not exist in the end-user's minde, then don't show it to 
them.

> That's not to say that enterprising/adventurous users shouldn't look
> closer, but that sometimes the distinctions just aren't all that
> important.

If the package in question really is part of the process I described above, 
then the usefulness of mentioning DBUS in the summary was already shown. I 
doubt very much that I would have found the connection between this 
beheaviour and a package with the summary "package management service" very 
fast.

Also the summary including "DBUS" is already very short, therefore I see no 
added value in removing it from the summary. If users need to be protected 
from this word in summaries, because they do not know it, then they should 
probably get the software installed anyways to keep their system uptodate. 
And this is the only possible argument that comes to my mind, why it should 
be removed.

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/20081121/0a0ef3f5/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list