Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Wed, 13 May 2009, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: I haven't read the whole long thread, so perhaps this has been mentioned by someone else. Python has recently decided to convert their documentation to reStructuredText [1]. It would make a lot of sense for Debian to use that de-facto standard (or so

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

I haven't read the whole long thread, so perhaps this has been mentioned by someone else. Python has recently decided to convert their documentation to reStructuredText [1]. It would make a lot of sense for Debian to use that de-facto standard (or some subset of it) for text typesetting in the long

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Frankly, I have no idea where this trade is going. IMHO the problem is that you assume our suggestions are in contrast to each other - but they are not. I wanted to iron out suggestions how to format the input in a standardised way. What wi

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, Apr 18 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>Here is an algorithm: >> --8<---cut here---start->8--- >> we are not in a list >> while reading each line, do >> remove leading space >> if the only non whit

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is an algorithm: --8<---cut here---start->8--- we are not in a list while reading each line, do remove leading space if the only non white space character on the line is a singe . remove the dot

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, Apr 18 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Vincent Danjean wrote: > >> Remove the first space, remove the '.' that are alone on their line, > > That's cheap. > >> add a blank line before enumeration (this last point seems the more >> annoying to me: it can be difficult to aut

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Vincent Danjean wrote: Remove the first space, remove the '.' that are alone on their line, That's cheap. add a blank line before enumeration (this last point seems the more annoying to me: it can be difficult to automatically find where to insert a blank line). Well -

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Peter Pentchev writes: > Just as a kind of clarification: Manoj, I think that Giacomo's > comments were only to the *last* item of the text he quoted, not to > the whole portion above it :) Thus, IMHO his first "really needed?" > question referred specifically to the "ordered lists" item, and the

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Andreas Tille wrote: > But what exactly do I have to do to get the item lists marked? Remove the first space, remove the '.' that are alone on their line, add a blank line before enumeration (this last point seems the more annoying to me: it can be difficult to automatically find where to insert a

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: - Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in decreasing order of importance: + unordered lists + ordered lists really needed? I would think these are the guts of this proposal. Or e

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:01:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > > > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> - Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in > >>decreasing order of importance: > >>+ unordered lists > >>+ ord

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Which is good, since Markdown/ReST rules for lists will only make the lists using o as the bullet out of whack. Fine. None of which are mandatory. All the package descriptions I read in /var/lib/dpkg/available seems to pass, though a

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:50:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think we need to enumerate some goals for this proposed > change. Here is a start: > > - Minimal disruption for current packages. The impact should be >measured by numbers of packages impacted > At this point, I would say

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> - Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in >>decreasing order of importance: >>+ unordered lists >>+ ordered lists > > really needed? I would think these are the guts of this

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj Srivastava wrote: > - Ability to recognize and render the following logical entities, in >decreasing order of importance: >+ unordered lists >+ ordered lists really needed? >+ emphasis >+ strong emphasis >+ definition l

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Hi, I think we need to enumerate some goals for this proposed change. Here is a start: - Minimal disruption for current packages. The impact should be measured by numbers of packages impacted + Any specification of which of *, +, - to use as th first level item will impact mo

Re: Item lists bulletting (was: Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

Quoting Lars Wirzenius (l...@liw.fi): > to, 2009-04-16 kello 08:42 +0200, Christian Perrier kirjoitti: > > I have never been able to find any such solid reference for English. > > There is probably something in the Chicago Manual of Style, that's > > generally accepted as the Right Reference for en

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Hi, Oh, markdown is only confused when you have `two' `words' quoted like this, wqhen there is only one such quote in the package, we are fine. This package contains the programs `abc2midi' which So, less than 149 instances of the tag where we want none. manoj findi

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>> my initial posting. Detecting these would need either a defined >>> character or a defined spacing (IMHO an 'and' would be better than >>> a non-exclusive 'or' here). >> >>Umm. I am not sure tha

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:01:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Umm. I am not sure that follows. I am also not convinced we need >> to invent our own rules. Text::Markdown or Text::MultiMarkdown could >> help. And they do not seem to hav

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Ben Finney wrote: > >> Note that, like Manoj, I'm suggesting only a *subset*, not the full >> specification. > > Well, in this thread we had several suggestions reaching from complete > change to different format up to "not in detail

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Ben Finney wrote: > (following up on IRC discussion) > > Manoj Srivastava writes: > >> I suggest we follow a convention and tool set already in place, >> with multiple language bindings, if you must insist on adding rules to >> the long description. >> >> T

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Ben Finney wrote: Note that, like Manoj, I'm suggesting only a *subset*, not the full specification. Well, in this thread we had several suggestions reaching from complete change to different format up to "not in detail specified" subsets of other formats. IMHO this does

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Ben Finney writes: > (following up on IRC discussion) > > Manoj Srivastava writes: > > > I suggest, for readability, to use a subset of markdown; the > > link and image tags are not that human readable. > > reStructuredText http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html> (reST) > is, I arg

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: my initial posting. Detecting these would need either a defined character or a defined spacing (IMHO an 'and' would be better than a non-exclusive 'or' here). Umm. I am not sure that follows. I am also not convinced we need to invent our own

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:01:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Umm. I am not sure that follows. I am also not convinced we need > to invent our own rules. Text::Markdown or Text::MultiMarkdown could > help. And they do not seem to have issues with recognizing > indentation/differen

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

(following up on IRC discussion) Manoj Srivastava writes: > I suggest we follow a convention and tool set already in place, > with multiple language bindings, if you must insist on adding rules to > the long description. > > There are alternatives (Text::Textile comes to mind)

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>Any script should be able to take the top 4 symbols currently >> used, and be able to detect them. I think *, +, - and o cover most >> packages, and the scripts in question can be readily expanded

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:34:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Having sad that, I would not be averse to specifying that leading > white space and *, +, and - would be acceptable as bullet marks (I > thought specifying which mark at which level was overspecification). Why don't we

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Any script should be able to take the top 4 symbols currently used, and be able to detect them. I think *, +, - and o cover most packages, and the scripts in question can be readily expanded. All kinds of markup languages already do something

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>Do we really have nothing better to do than to impose >> bureaucratic rules on what characters to use as bullet symbols in long >> descriptions even if the user can tell that the character is a bul

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do we really have nothing better to do than to impose bureaucratic rules on what characters to use as bullet symbols in long descriptions even if the user can tell that the character is a bullet? The user can tell, but scripts can't reliably.

Re: Item lists bulletting (was: Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

to, 2009-04-16 kello 08:42 +0200, Christian Perrier kirjoitti: > I have never been able to find any such solid reference for English. > There is probably something in the Chicago Manual of Style, that's > generally accepted as the Right Reference for en_US. > > Maybe more input from our experts on

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Wed, Apr 15 2009, Guillem Jover wrote: > Tag \* was used 9277 times (68.0900%) > Tag - was used 3837 times (28.1600%) > Tag + was used 120 times (.8800%) > Tag o was used 390 times (2.8600%) > > Regardless of the numbers though (which have moved lately slightly in > favour of '-' due to the re

Item lists bulletting (was: Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

Andreas Tille a écrit : > I have not found any recommendation regarding this at the SRP Wiki page > [1]. > I vaguely remember that this Smith project was initially driven by a French > guy who might try to push a French habit into the English world. ;-) Of course. Because, contrary to the world

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Guillem Jover wrote: ,-- count-bullet-chars.sh -- #!/bin/sh lists=/var/lib/apt/lists/*_sid_main_*_Packages total=`grep "^ *[-+\*o] " $lists | wc -l` for tag in "\*" "-" "+" "o"; do items=`grep "^ *$tag " $lists | wc -l` percent=`echo "scale=4; $items / $total * 100" | bc`

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Hi! On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 13:26:36 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Michael Banck wrote: > > So it would be great if some numbers could be brought up first (maybe > > Andreas has a rough overview now, because he looked at the different > > kinds of itemizations). > > Well, I had

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Guillem Jover wrote: There's been a wiki page trying to track this, including packages which formatting was proving problematic: Great. The most important information from this page for myself is that ther

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Hi! On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 16:23:12 -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > I don't have the energy to push this any more, but I should probably > at least refer to my previous attempt to standardize bulleted lists: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00531.html > > You might find it u

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > Uh, what are you saying here? That we should use " * " to prepend > items in itemized lists, so that it can be converted to HTML lists by > packages.debian.org et al.? If not, what else? Yes. More generally, I believe we can bene

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

I don't have the energy to push this any more, but I should probably at least refer to my previous attempt to standardize bulleted lists: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00531.html You might find it useful, or not. At least it more or less documents current practice in aptitu

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:32:17PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > In that respect, resisting the NIH syndrome just means choose an > already existing text-based markup language and adopt its > convention. For instance, we can just say that long description lists > have to be formatted as Markdo

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Quoting Andreas Tille (til...@rki.de): > Could you please clarify whether you mean *enumeration* (in the sense I meant itemization, actually, so more "" than "". There are certainly very few cases where ordered lists are really useful in packages' description. Sorry for the approximative English

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: In particular, I observe that we (IIRC) already have psuedo-parsing code which is used at least by packages.d.o to render as proper HTML lists the pseudo-lists which come from long descriptions. Not that I know of. IMHO it is just set verbose ()

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:45:09PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > I do not propose drastic changes but a start for "Best practices" > might be reasonable and perhaps some lintian warnings might help to > remind developers to move to some standard. Laudable initiative, thanks for raising the issue.

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Michael Banck wrote: So it would be great if some numbers could be brought up first (maybe Andreas has a rough overview now, because he looked at the different kinds of itemizations). Well, I had not but you can get it somehow by for tag in "\*" "-" "+" "o" ; do echo

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:24:45AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Michael Banck (mba...@debian.org): > > > > Please note that debian-l10n-english suggests using the enumeration > > > style you mention for a2ps, when we're reviewing package > > > descriptions... > > > > What's the ratio

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: What's the rationale? So far, I was under the impression that " * " A not very strong one, I'm afraid..:-) IIRC, we once found some reference indicating a tendency for dashed enumerations to be an accepted "standard" but I can't quote this. C

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Quoting Michael Banck (mba...@debian.org): > > Please note that debian-l10n-english suggests using the enumeration > > style you mention for a2ps, when we're reviewing package > > descriptions... > > What's the rationale? So far, I was under the impression that " * " A not very strong one, I'

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:13:54PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Andreas Tille (til...@rki.de): > > > Package: a2ps > > - various encodings (all the Latins and others), > > - various fonts (automatic font down loading), > > - various medias, > > ^^ (two spaces) > Please note tha

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Neil Williams wrote: > > If large numbers of package descriptions are to change collectively, > it's best to make that one change with two aims rather than two separate > changes. Less work for everyone involved. But Andreas' RFC affects the source packages, yours only affects the infrastructure

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Lionel Elie Mamane writes: > The very long lengths seem to come mostly from lists of CTAN > packages in a Debian package; I find these useful, as I can > "apt-cache search CTAN_package" to find it in Debian. For that purpose, it would seem ‘apt-file’ can do the job better, obviating the need for

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/typesetting.html The very long lengths seem to come mostly from lists of CTAN packages in a Debian package; I find these useful, as I can "apt-cache search CTAN_package" to find it in Debian. Yes, I'm

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:52:10PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > I agree that some descriptions are definitely to long. I wonder who > should really read some descriptions to the end. Bad examples can > be viewn here: >http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/typesetting.html The very lon

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Quoting Andreas Tille (til...@rki.de): > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > >> Please note that debian-l10n-english suggests using the enumeration >> style you mention for a2ps, when we're reviewing package >> descriptions... > > BTW, once you answered in this thread: Shouldn't we make

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: Please note that debian-l10n-english suggests using the enumeration style you mention for a2ps, when we're reviewing package descriptions... BTW, once you answered in this thread: Shouldn't we make the suggested enhancements part of the Smith-Proje

Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Michael Bramer wrote: if we like to remove the long description from the package file, we must change apt in some way and use some other rules for select the right description (a new 'Description-md5sum' or the Version-Nr) I'd call the Version-Nr. a sinsible choice. ;-)

Re: Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

Neil Williams wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:15:00 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: [...] > > What about a way of having a really long, detailed, nicely formatted > > description on packages.debian.org but a much shorter, more basic > > version in the Packages.gz file? > > > The extended descri

Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

Paul Wise schrieb: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Neil Williams wrote: It's another instance of duplication - why retain the long description in the Packages file while a translated version also exists from DDTP? Probably better for the description to be removed from the Packages file comp

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Quoting Andreas Tille (til...@rki.de): > Package: a2ps > - various encodings (all the Latins and others), > - various fonts (automatic font down loading), > - various medias, > ^^ (two spaces) > > Package: acerhk-source >* controlling LEDs (Mail, Wireless) >* enable/disable wireless

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > 2. Does not break any existing tool I tend to agree with Martin. Do you have a particular reason making this change urge? Just to give the suggestion a small chance. I'm not against a "better" format but I have read enough suggestions tha

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Neil Williams wrote: My comment for this RFC is, therefore, that better formatting for long descriptions should include a review of whether the long description deserves to be that long in the first place, whether the long description merely duplicates data already available

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Neil Williams wrote: Packages.gz is already 26Mb - I'd like to find ways to shorten the package descriptions, not lengthen it. :-( Please read again. Chances are good that packages files might become shorter. The rationale behind this is that with some better standard f

Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Neil Williams wrote: > It's another instance of duplication - why retain the long description > in the Packages file while a translated version also exists from DDTP? > Probably better for the description to be removed from the Packages > file completely and the D

Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:28:36 +0900 Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > The extended description needs to be available to APT, not only via > > packages.d.o. > > I agree with Neil William's comment in the other thread about removing > long descripti

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:32:51 +0100 Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:20:43PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > I'd like to get the longest descriptions out of Packages.gz completely, > > so encouraging their retention it not ideal. It's not about whether 2 > > or 3 spaces should be

Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:15:00 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) > > Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long > > > descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two > > >

Re: Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > The extended description needs to be available to APT, not only via > packages.d.o. I agree with Neil William's comment in the other thread about removing long descriptions from the Packages files. I think the obvious place to put them i

Re: Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, martin f krafft wrote: What we really should do, instead of clinging to the NIH-behaviour, reinventing the wheel, and polishing it over and over again is ditch the pseudo-RFC822 format we have and use Yaml instead. http://www.yaml.org/start.html htt

Extended descriptions size (was Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) Andreas Tille wrote: > I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long > descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two > leading spaces is considered verbose. Packages.gz is already 26Mb - I'd like t

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:20:43PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > I'd like to get the longest descriptions out of Packages.gz completely, > so encouraging their retention it not ideal. It's not about whether 2 > or 3 spaces should be used, it's about whether such detailed content > deserves to be in

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:08:43 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 19:03 +, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) > > Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long > > > descriptions of pack

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

Neil Williams wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) > Andreas Tille wrote: > >> I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long >> descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two >> leading spaces is considered verbose. > > Packages.

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 19:03 +, Neil Williams wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) > Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long > > descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two > > leading spaces

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) Andreas Tille wrote: > I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long > descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two > leading spaces is considered verbose. Packages.gz is already 26Mb - I'd like to f

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:45:09PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > 1. Itemize lists: () > > > 2. Enumerate lists: () > -- > > 3. Description lists: () > > > This suggestion is far from complete and should be enhanced. Well

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, martin f krafft wrote: What we really should do, instead of clinging to the NIH-behaviour, reinventing the wheel, and polishing it over and over again is ditch the pseudo-RFC822 format we have and use Yaml instead. http://www.yaml.org/start.html http://yaml.org/spec/1.2/

Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions

also sprach Andreas Tille [2009.03.20.1445 +0100]: > I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long > descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two > leading spaces is considered verbose. This leaves a lot of freedom to > simulate for instance