Barry deFreese wrote: > Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: >> Barry deFreese wrote: >> >>> The short description for libzlcore is not very informative and I >>> believe also not policy compliant. >>> >> Not very informative, agreed. Does "ZLibrary cross-platform >> development library >> (development files)" sound better for you (and similar short >> descriptions for other >> ZLibrary binary packages)? >> >> > Sounds better but I don't think the package name is supposed to be > repeated. Here is the quote from the developers reference: > > "The synopsis line (the short description) should be concise. It must > not repeat the package's name (this is policy). > > It's a good idea to think of the synopsis as an appositive clause, not a > full sentence. An appositive clause is defined in WordNet as a > grammatical relation between a word and a noun phrase that follows, > e.g., Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. The appositive clause here is > red-nosed reindeer. Since the synopsis is a clause, rather than a full > sentence, we recommend that it neither start with a capital nor end with > a full stop (period). It should also not begin with an article, either > definite (the) or indefinite (a or an). " > Thanks for full explanation. I've read before, but I didn't think that "ZLibrary" is a repeating of the "libzlcore"... Is it, really? If yes, then "cross-platform development library (development files)"?
>>> Perhaps: "cross platform development library" or >>> something similar? That is probably too generic. >>> >>> The long description is also not exactly clear on what particular >>> functionality this library provides. >>> >> Fully agreed. I have situation, that ZLibrary is used only by fbreader >> and it is the main >> part of it. Author doesn't provide any public info about this library >> - it is only >> semi-self-independent part of fbreader code and functionality. And I, >> as user of fbreader >> and maintainer of the package, does not actually know exact >> functionality provided by this >> library - it just makes fbreader working. Is it bad approach in this >> case? Should I make a >> detailed look into library's public interfaces and build some more >> descriptive? >> > > I don't think you necessarily need to get that detailed. I used to have > a link for a nice guide on package descriptions but it seems to be a > dead link now. If I can find it I will send it along. Thanks for look. So, what would you suggest to change in current long description? Also CC'ing my sponsor, Vincent Bernat, for possible comments. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
