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

[Ben]

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