[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: What I'm going to do: Was: RFC: Description text in packages




Le Mer 17 décembre 2008 10:49, Richard Hughes a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 17:30 -0500, James Antill wrote:
>>  Personally I think the use of '"', ., *, •, o or ∘ ... are fine,
>> just
>> as long as all the tools are displaying the same non-invisible
>> bytes².
>
> Right, this discussion is going nowhere, and there are a lot of egos
> in play. At the moment I'm thinking PK should just do this:

So now you are defining a new gnome-PK only syntax that won't work in
yum, rpm, urpmi, apt, synaptic, gnorpm, yumex, anaconda, LSB rpm, etc
and will encourage people to produce badly encoded descriptions
instead of fixing their text.

And you can't even be bothered to get it reviewed at the distro level
(let alone upstream rpm or lsb-side)

While you are at it, please also integrate a spell and grammar checker
so users are not exposed to spelling and grammar mistakes and
packagers do not have to worry about grammar or spell problems.

Seriously. This stuff is already defined and standardised. You may not
like what the currebt official choices are, but workarounding them at
your app level instead of fixing them at the right level (upstream, ie
in this case in the distro spec files) is not the right thing to do.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]