RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:18:53 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:

> IMO the main problem in design is that PK only allows to search for
> names,

The it ought to get fixed.

> In a perfect world (TM) you could also search for "file manger" or "word
> processor" and then select one from the results given.

Great! :)

> And then it would
> IMO perfectly make sense to have the app name in the summary because
> otherwise a search for "file manger" would most likely return a bunch
> of ... well... "file managers".

Not so great anymore, because (1) the pkg name usually bears a striking
resemblance with the app name, and (2) there have been cases already where
users failed to find an app when searching for the app name in package
names. Example: kmail and other KDE apps, which are found in packages that
have a completely different name. You cannot squeeze the name of all apps
into the summary just to serve those users who search for app names.

> I don't think that a name or brand scares anybody. I
> could argue that with a lot of "file managers" they are afraid of
> choosing the wrong one.

Perhaps because it comes with a text-based interface only and the
summary doesn't mention that? ;)

[Thunar]

> > Not specific, but its FAQ says "... with a special focus on the Xfce
> > DE". And the first line of the description says:
> > 
> >   Thunar is a new modern file manager for the Xfce Desktop Environment.
> 
> <bikeshed> I guess we could argue about the words "new" and "modern"
> </bikeshed>

Certainly. ;) This the the current %description of the Fedora pkg, however.

> > Just "File manager" is fine, too.
> 
> But then we are over-simplifying the summaries. If we carry on like
> this, one day we only have "text editors" "file managers" and "word
> processors" left.

What's wrong with that?

There will still be some apps that don't offer a GUI, and that would be a
good reason to mention that in the summary.  Don't forget that for more
verbosity, the user could display the description. There are other package
details a package management GUI might hide by default (%version and
%release, for example),

  mc : User-friendly text console file manager and visual shell

A "visual shell", haha!

> > trademarks make ordinary users nervous. Have you ever met users who
> > would
> > ask "What is an AbiWord word processor?" while looking for a "normal"
> > word
> > processor? 
> 
> No, but I'm sure everybody recognizes AbiWord as a name and not as a
> general term. We live in a world of names and brands, as Andrea already
> said.

Sure, but what makes it so special as to mention it? Do you need to
know what AbiWord is?

  texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system

You better stay away from it unless you have an idea what TeX and/or
LaTeX are.

  emacs - GNU Emacs text editor

Can it edit only Emacs text files? I would change the summary to
  Versatile text editor
or
  Customizable text editor


  vim - A version of the VIM editor which includes recent enhancements

Only the description explains what "VIM" means. Without that knowledge,
this summary is less helpful, as VIM could be a special data file format,
for example.

> Sorry to say that, but I think your examples are a very quixotic. I have
> never seen someone who has been surfing the internet with web browser
> that is started automatically.

This is splitting-hairs. Let them switch between IE and Firefox and Opera,
change the desktop icon and title, which they click usually to start the
browser - there are enough ways to confuse non-geeks or newbies.