Hi again! First of all, sorry that you received it in a bad way. About the background of my bugfilings: I do check the descriptions of packages that enter testing and do QA on them. When I found similar errors I check wether they are from different source packages - like in this case, because our BTS doesn't handle bugreports against multiple packages nicely and thus different source packages should get tracked seperately. Unfortunately you had four pretty similar packages in the same rush and thus received four of them...
* Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> [2009-11-09 22:18:28 CET]: > On 9 November 2009 at 21:24, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > | It would be nice if the long description of your packages could consist > | of full sentences[1]. The short snippet isn't really a sentence nor much > | descriptive. > | > | So long, and thanks for your great work nevertheless! > | Rhonda > | [1] > <http://www.us.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices#bpp-pkg-desc> > > Jeebus. > > Those are the four single-least helpful bugreports I have gotten in ages. If > you insist on using a machine gun to open them, I will use a machine gun to > close them. I don't use any machine gun and I am sorry if you got that impression. These bugreports are almost all of the times received in the helpful and constructive way they are meant, sorry that they stirred you up like that. > r-cran-* packages conform to a common policy. Feel free to contact we offlist > with review of the policy. That might be valid, though the package descriptions have a common reasoning and should receive the same helpful style amongst all packages and I don't really think that a conflicting policy amongst that is a good thing - and actually I highly doubt that there should be a policy that is against the guidelines of that the package descriptions should contain full sentences and be able to describe the package. > In this, as in many other cases of the 100+ r-cran-* packages, upstream texts > have been used. Almost all of the times this is used as a reason upstream is very welcoming about improvements along that lines. After all the description ... is a description and should be able to describe the package. :) Hope you can reconsider and think about it once again your anger about the multiple reports has worn off, which unfortunately was needed because of the shortcomings of our bug tracker in that respect. Thanks, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
