Differences between revisions 27 and 28
Revision 27 as of 2005-07-30 15:40:39
Size: 8496
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Revision 28 as of 2005-07-31 00:38:28
Size: 8499
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 146: Line 146:
||news ||37 || anthony || 0%|| || 0%|| ||news ||37 || anthony || DONE || || 0%||

Many packages in Debian have low quality descriptions. This affects the general quality of the distribution by making searching difficult.

The idea (first mentioned by Lars Wirzenius in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/07/msg01095.html) is to make a general package descriptions review campaign

What needs to be done

All packages descriptions for packages in unstable (maybe only in main) should be reviewed. A large number of common "mistakes" can easily be spotted. Please have a look at the "Things to look for" section.

For descriptions which are identified as problematic, an updated proposal will be elaborated.

Organization

To ensure maximal quality, all reviews and updates should be made by at least two people. Native English speakers are of course appreciated.

A Web-based interface has been developed and is available at http://zorglub.diwi.org/pkg-descriptions

Such an interface will (hopefully) allow easy centralization of the current reviews, and easy generation of reports.

Here is how the work will be organized:

  • Reviewers claim sections on this page to avoid conflicts
  • Reviewers use the interface to spot descriptions that need to be fixed
  • A proposal is elaborated.

When we have finished, a repository of the proposed descriptions with attached patches will be made available and an announcement will be sent out.

What we can hope is that maintainers will use as much as possible this patches repository and fix their descriptions. After a few weeks, we'll start submitting bugs with these patches. (as it will represent a mass bug filing, we'll coordinate with qa).

Things to look for

In general, anything that does not help or confuse the user is probably worth fixing

Obvious stuff

  • Typos
  • Incorrect English

Other

  • Descriptions that do not really describe what the package does

      The description must include enough details for the user to know what it 
      is about. If the package is related to another one (foo-data, for example),
      the package does not have to repeat what foo is... but it has to explain
      how it relates to foo anyway. Also, when there are several versions of a
      package available, that should be explained. (Example that needs fixing:
      bash vs. bash-minimal)
  • Hyperbolae

      Stuff like "this package is the best in the world"
  • Stuff not interesting for the user
    • "foo was written by me "
    • bar was written while its author had a broken leg"
    • generally speaking, anything too "personal"
  • Incorrect tone

      Many package descriptions are "joking", or are even scornful.
      This should definitely be avoided.
  • Policy violations. See

      http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Description

Controversial stuff

  • Technical details about the implementation of the program

A consensus might be that some details are OK/needed, but that should remain reasonable.

Generally speaking, these details should rather be at the end of the descriptions, after describing what the package is/does, or at least not be too intrusive.

  • Worse: "Foo is a Python tool which uses libbar. It can frobnicate baz"
  • Better: "Foo is a Python tool to frobnicate baz. It uses libbar."

Volunteers

If you want to help, please register your name here and/or drop a mail to zorglub _a_t_ diwi _d_o_t_ org

  • Clément Stenac
  • Anthony ?DeRobertis

  • Margarita Manterola (["Marga"])
  • Christine Spang
  • Alexander Schmehl (["Tolimar"])
  • many others (hopefully)

An IRC channel has been created : #debian-descriptions on Freenode. I think it could be useful (and nice, too). Feel free to join

How to use the web interface

First of all, you need to pick up a login. No authentication is provided, its only use is to know who made reviews.

You then need to select a section to begin working on. Section with many packages are split up.

You are then taken to the main review page. For each package, you can enter a status "Ok", or "Needs fixing" and a comment. (Two review fields are provided).

If you want to enter aditionnal comments, work on a proposal, or comment on the current proposal, you need to go tho the package details page by clicking the package name.

Work repartition

Top priority should be given to desktop applications (gnome, kde, x11, ...) Lowest priority sections are libs, devel, ... and generally speaking stuff users don't often search for.

Section

Nb packages

1st reviewer

Status

2nd reviewer

Status

admin

704

0%

0%

base

151

0%

0%

comm

102

0%

0%

contrib/admin

8

0%

0%

contrib/comm

3

0%

0%

contrib/devel

52

0%

0%

contrib/doc

15

0%

0%

contrib/games

20

0%

0%

contrib/graphics

6

0%

0%

contrib/interpreters

2

0%

0%

contrib/kde

1

0%

0%

contrib/libdevel

4

0%

0%

contrib/libs

34

0%

0%

contrib/mail

14

0%

0%

contrib/math

3

0%

0%

contrib/misc

12

0%

0%

contrib/net

15

0%

0%

contrib/otherosfs

22

0%

0%

contrib/perl

2

0%

0%

contrib/python

1

0%

0%

contrib/science

2

0%

0%

contrib/sound

8

0%

0%

contrib/text

22

0%

0%

contrib/utils

10

0%

0%

contrib/web

11

0%

0%

contrib/x11

12

0%

0%

devel

1331

0%

0%

doc

925

0%

0%

editors

220

0%

0%

electronics

63

0%

0%

embedded

9

0%

0%

games

675

0%

0%

gnome

324

zorglub

0%

0%

graphics

349

0%

0%

hamradio

75

0%

0%

interpreters

459

0%

0%

kde

278

0%

0%

libdevel

1449

0%

0%

libs

1791

0%

0%

mail

339

0%

0%

math

245

0%

0%

misc

436

0%

0%

net

1128

0%

0%

news

37

anthony

DONE

0%

non-free/admin

5

0%

0%

non-free/comm

4

0%

0%

non-free/devel

15

0%

0%

non-free/doc

48

0%

0%

non-free/editors

2

0%

0%

non-free/electronics

3

0%

0%

non-free/games

34

0%

0%

non-free/graphics

18

0%

0%

non-free/hamradio

2

0%

0%

non-free/libdevel

5

0%

0%

non-free/libs

8

0%

0%

non-free/mail

3

0%

0%

non-free/math

9

0%

0%

non-free/misc

10

0%

0%

non-free/net

13

0%

0%

non-free/news

6

0%

0%

non-free/otherosfs

4

0%

0%

non-free/python

5

0%

0%

non-free/science

16

0%

0%

non-free/sound

7

0%

0%

non-free/tex

8

0%

0%

non-free/text

14

0%

0%

non-free/utils

6

0%

0%

non-free/web

4

0%

0%

non-free/x11

26

0%

0%

oldlibs

104

0%

0%

otherosfs

98

0%

0%

perl

873

0%

0%

python

707

0%

0%

science

143

0%

0%

shells

32

0%

0%

sound

438

0%

0%

tex

151

0%

0%

text

559

0%

0%

utils

752

0%

0%

web

877

0%

0%

x11

737

0%

0%