[Mageia-discuss] Mageia-discuss Digest, Vol 2, Issue 119 Package descriptions

Wed Oct 27 01:11:30 CEST 2010

On 10/25/2010 01:58 AM, mageia-discuss-request at mageia.org wrote:
+> Send Mageia-discuss mailing list submissions to
+> 	mageia-discuss at mageia.org
+>
+> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
+> 	https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss
+> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
+> 	mageia-discuss-request at mageia.org
+>
+> You can reach the person managing the list at
+> 	mageia-discuss-owner at mageia.org
+>
+> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
+> than "Re: Contents of Mageia-discuss digest..."
+>
+>
+> Today's Topics:
+>
+>     1. Re: Suggestions (Marc Par?)
+>     2. Re: Suggestions (Ahmad Samir)
+>     3. Re: Suggestions (Luca Berra)
+>     4. Re: network balancing by default (Luca Berra)
+>     5. Re: network balancing by default (Maarten Vanraes)
+>     6. Re: network balancing by default (Maarten Vanraes)
+>
+>
+> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+>
+> Message: 1
+> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:31:21 -0400
+> From: Marc Par?<marc at marcpare.com>
+> To: mageia-discuss at mageia.org
+> Subject: Re: [Mageia-discuss] Suggestions
+> Message-ID:<ia316p$26i$1 at dough.gmane.org>
+> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
+>
+> Le 2010-10-25 00:12, Kira a ?crit :
+>    
+>> ? Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:59:25 +0800, Marc Par?<marc at marcpare.com>??:
+>>      
+>>> I think that it is pretty clear that packagers don't really want to
+>>> deal with updating description, but the users would like to have
+>>> updated descriptions. So, what if there was a group of users in charge
+>>> of updating the package descriptions/translations where needed? Would
+>>> this work?
+>>>        
+>> The problem is that currently if we want to translate the description, then
+>>
+>> we have to modify the SPEC of the RPM, which can only be done with
+>> packager.
+>>
+>> Like the previous messages, we have 2 methods to choose:
+>>
+>> 1 .po files for 1 package
+>>
+>> or
+>>
+>> 1 .po files for multiple packages
+>>
+>> The first one would cause many .po files to maintain, while the other
+>>
+>> cause the maintainence hard( too complicate).
+>> ====
+>> I think maybe a more aggresive way is better:
+>>
+>> Make the detailed description available only for programs, not packages.
+>>
+>> Currently the RPMDRAKE is packages based, which is hard for newbies to find
+>>
+>> programs they need and the amount of the description need to maintain
+>> also scares
+>>
+>> everyone off.
+>>
+>> The "Programs with GUI" option is the first step, but I think we should
+>> step further,
+>>
+>> let people install programs, not packages. Therefore, we can ease both
+>> the difficulty
+>>
+>> of maintain descriptions and installation harsh.
+>>
+>>      
+> Ah! I guess my choice of words. I am still finding my way around the
+> jargon. I would have meant all of this for software. Yes. This would all
+> make sense.
+>
+> I agree with you. And as stated earlier, often the description has been
+> updated on the programme's website and there is little fiddling around
+> to include it.
+>
+> I also believe that we should try to help the devs as much as possible
+> and make their work as much as "developer" by nature as possible. We can
+> take care of the more mundane tasks for them. Let's let them code to
+> their heart's delight and we will just gain more from their hard and
+> generous work. Just as they will with us.
+>
+> BTW, in my opinion, the default GUI setting in the MCC was not a right
+> choice. It excluded too many pieces of software for users. I usually
+> recommended people to select the "All" setting, and from there to search
+> for the ideal programme. There are just not enough GUI packages in the
+> repos to make it fun in that particular sections. Everything should be
+> available to the user.
+>
+> Marc
+>
+>
+>
+> ------------------------------
+>
+> Message: 2
+> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:42:49 +0200
+> From: Ahmad Samir<ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com>
+> To: Mageia general discussions<mageia-discuss at mageia.org>
+> Subject: Re: [Mageia-discuss] Suggestions
+> Message-ID:
+> 	<AANLkTikoW1ZvJ26Gq8bBWzEjKzvpcZ9D_Ouy33bcZFh5 at mail.gmail.com>
+> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
+>
+> On 25 October 2010 02:19, Wayne Sallee<Wayne at waynesallee.com>  wrote:
+>    
+>> Michael Scherer wrote on 10/23/2010 08:52 PM:
+>>      
+>>> Le dimanche 24 octobre 2010 ? ?02:09 +0200, Tux99 a ??crit :
+>>>
+>>>        
+>>>> Come on... the effort of adding a decent description is minimal for a
+>>>> packager, the effort for a normal user of making a patch is much
+>>>> higher, this is not a very friendly answer towards the users...
+>>>>
+>>>>          
+>>> I think I demonstrated in the past that constant friendliness toward
+>>> users is not one of my distinctive characteristics.
+>>>
+>>> The patch arguent is invalid, because people can also send mail, like
+>>> "here is a better description of package $FOO because I didn't
+>>> understood the current one and I wanted to help".
+>>>
+>>> So while sending a email and finding the packager email can be hard for
+>>> some people, I doubt that sending a email is hard for everybody.
+>>>
+>>> If writing a decent description is easy and almost effortless, and if
+>>> sending a email is easy, then what is difficult into doing both ?
+>>>        
+>> I agree that it is only logical to contribute by e-mailing the packager
+>> about an improvement need in the package, but some packagers don't want you
+>> e-mailing them about their package.
+>>
+>> As a community distro, we want to try to make it comfortable and easy for
+>> everyone to get involved.
+>>
+>> Knowing that many packagers are not going to want you e-mailing them about
+>> their package, reduces the number of people that will take the time to
+>> e-mail them with such contribution. Of course what makes it easier for one,
+>> makes it harder for another, so there needs to be balance there. Sometimes
+>> our expectations are expecting too much from the other who is working a lot
+>> of thankless hours to keep the distro going.
+>>
+>> It's all about balance and efficiency, and making it easy for people to
+>> start contributing, and realizing that some jobs are more time consuming
+>> than we might think.
+>>
+>> Developing systems and protocols help keep things running efficient, and
+>> moving forward.
+>>
+>> Wayne Sallee
+>> Wayne at WayneSallee.com
+>>
+>>      
+> Yes, using bugzilla is usually better; an advantage of filing a bug
+> report over sending a personal email is that the bug gets more
+> exposure and any packager who has a bit of free time and can fix it
+> (especially if you're talking about just changing the package
+> description) will do so; i.e. the whole process becomes faster by
+> distributing the workload (especially not-too-invasive package
+> changes).
+>
+>    
+Perhaps the packagers and the backporters (assuming we have any)  should 
+have their own digest mailing list.  The packagers are very busy but the 
+backporters (community members with the basic knowledge to make an RPM 
+from Cauldron) would be proud and happy to make sense of users package 
+description suggestions and pass on a heads up to the packager if a good 
+suggestion comes along.   It would cut down on the noise that a true 
+packager would have to wade through and, once a relationship is 
+developed between a packager and a backporter,  'could'  make the 
+packagers job somewhat easier while at the same time (assuming that the 
+backporters are good community members i.e.  IRC,  newbie and expert 
+mailing list etc.) give users an easily accessible  point of contact for 
+regular users.   I think users would appreciate this.  Backporters would 
+be glad to be a part of both the user and dev community and packagers 
+would be able to participate in the community at the level they feel 
+they are able to without feeling that they are stretched thin.
+While I'm on this subject.  I think it might be a good idea to have 
+assigned backporters for packages or groups of packages.  Just a thought.
+benja22
+
+
+