ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[HggdH <hggdh2@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

After some iteraction on bugs 264190 [1] and 120527 [2], the reporter
opened bug 268784 [3]. Although this bug has been closed invalid (wrong
venue), its proposal is still sensible, and I would like opinions on it:

---snip---

"This is a suggestion to make an improvement to the "needs-packaging"
system.

1) Use Titles in Summary Area that are more informative.

Currently the instructions only require a "title" to be placed in the
"Summary" text field of the Bug Report form used for package requests.

Some of the names for programs give absolutely no idea what the program
does, or can be used for.

I have found that a useful way to make the title is to use the name of
the program (space, minus sign, space) followed by a brief description.
The description can say what the program does, or what type of program
it is.

e.g. Gimp - Graphics Editor, OME - Open Movie Editor, multitrack video
editor.

2) The categories that the program could be suitably placed in, can be
included in the tags section.
This helps people that are interested in packaging certain types of
programs, to scan the list of yet to be packaged programs, and "Find"
them easily".

Can you please forward these suggestions to the web admins, and whoever
is responsible, so these suggestions can be discussed."

---snip---

This is a good request, although it would require changes outside
bug-control. Opinions, please?

This all started from a hit on a [needs packaging] request (again, [1]
and [2]) where the proposed package had a name already in use. When I
acted on these bugs I renamed the packages following the Debian ITP
given name. It is now clear, for me, that the Debian proposed package
name is not ideal: it could have been, for example, "sage-sagemath", or
something else. At the same time, this can create some ridiculously long
package names.

This actually raises -- at least for me -- a good point: I found no
indication on either Debian or Ubuntu policies on how to deal with
package name clash. I *think* this is something that only the affected
upstreams can actually resolve, since we should not rename a product.

Regards,

..hggdh..

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/120527
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/268784
[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/268784

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part