Hey Reuben, I can't really argue with you, the first line of the description basically says it all, the rest was some late night filler from back when gcc2.95 was a Hot Thing, mainly to give some sense of why this was in the distro, when it's not actually an arch we support and we didn't typically package other cross compilers...
I'm all for freshening things up though, things have changed, its been an accepted part of the distro for quite a few years, (each of which has seen my freedom from supporting windows users decline sharply ;) and pretty much anyone with a use for it will know enough of what it is and what it does before they install it to really learn much from (or even look at) the package description. So... since my present motto, "windows users get a web app", doesn't really seem applicable here, lets throw this open to a little competition for aspiring package description writers, how about this: The slickest, most accurate (and/or stick-in-your-pineal-gland amusing) contribution posted as a followup to this bug report, in say 80x12 or less, will win a pretty good chance of winding up in the next upload. This offer is good until the closing of this bug, the opening of its successor, or the Four Lawmen of the Apocalypse ride in to tell us Its All Over... contributors may be required to run the gauntlet of peer review or think about grammar and stuff. If you've always wanted to tell the world what you think of this package, here's your big chance! Get in fast before some half assed word slinger swaps my soul for their own cheap scripture... Ok, it should be clear by this stage I'm not from marketing, nor poet, priest, or politician -- my real eloquence is in languages other than human. So seriously, if someone sends me a well written replacement, I'll be as happy to include it as I am with contributions from any of our other translation teams or bug patchers. Sort of makes me wonder why we don't have a debian-english doing the same sort of review the other translations get... Anyway, that's the usual deal. For anyone who is really into this sort of thing, I have some other vintage package descriptions you could probably grate your nerves against to good effect too ... Suggestions for those packages filed against them though please. Cheers! Ron On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:23:25AM +0000, Reuben Thomas wrote: > Package: mingw32 > Version: 3.4.5.20060117.1-1 > Severity: minor > > I feel I know what you're trying to mean by "Freedom through > obsolescence." but I can't parse it. I am a happy user of the mingw32 > package to support people who need win32 binaries. What's the freedom > being endowed, and how is it being endowed through obsolescence? > Obsolescence of what? Even if it's a joke (I'm imagining it painting > win32 as obsolescent) I still don't get it. If that's right, it's > definitely freedom *from* obsolescence. > > Sorry if this seems trivial, but package descriptions should be slick, > and, whether funny or not, shouldn't stick in the craw as this one > does. Forgive me if I'm simply being stupid... > > -- System Information: > Debian Release: 4.0 > APT prefers testing > APT policy: (500, 'testing') > Architecture: i386 (i686) > Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash > Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-3-686 > Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) > > Versions of packages mingw32 depends on: > ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-8 GNU C Library: Shared libraries > ii mingw32-binutils 2.16.91-20060119.1-1 Minimalist GNU win32 (cross) > binut > ii mingw32-runtime 3.9-4 Minimalist GNU win32 (cross) > runti > > mingw32 recommends no packages. > > -- no debconf information > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
