On 21-Mar-2009, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Why should we be not allowed ro refer to Openoffice.org in the > deescription, It's well known.
The reasoning is in the Developer's Reference: the tools that will
display the synopsis already display the package name, so the synopsis
should use its limited space to describe the package, assuming that
the package name is part of the context and not naming it again.
> Instead of adding everwhere the "full-featured office productivity
> suite" bogusly. (I can understand that for the core modules of
> openoffice.org, but not for debug, SDK ("OpenOffice.org SDK" is an
> own product by Su, though build from OOo source) and the extensions
> (report-builder officially is called "Sun Report Builder". That's
> not better than the current description, is it?)
That's a little different point: I was attempting to make all the
packages that are “part of” the full OpenOffice.org suite follow the
same pattern, to be visually similar in a listing. (Much like now, but
without repeating the package name.)
It seems you consider the set of packages that are “part of ”
OpenOffice.org to be more specific than the wide net I cast. What
subset would you have omit the “full-featured office productivity
suite” text in the synopsis?
--
\ “Are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Umm, I think so, |
`\ Brain, but what if the chicken won't wear the nylons?” —_Pinky |
_o__) and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
