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, a patch must be elaborated and a wishlist bug filed.
Organization proposal
To ensure maximal quality, all reviews and updates should probably 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 reports generation.
For work coordination, a wiki appears to be the best solution, either this one or another one...
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.
Hyperbolaes.
Stuff like "this package is the best in the world"
- Stuff not interesting for the usre
- "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 not be allowed.
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.
- Good: "Foo is a Python tool to frobnicate baz. It uses libbar."
- Bad: "Foo is a Python tool which uses libbar. It can frobnicate baz"
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
- many others (hopefully)