Bug 472644 - Please fix your package summary
Please fix your package summary
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: efax (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ngo Than
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-11-22 10:55 EST by Richard Hughes
Modified: 2009-09-07 09:46 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-09-07 09:46:52 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Richard Hughes 2008-11-22 10:55:21 EST

I've opened this bug because you're listed as a maintainer of one or more packages in Fedora with a "bad summary"[1]. We've been discussing recently about adding clarification to the package guidelines, specifically about what makes a good package summary, and I would like people to fix as many existing packages as possible:

Our default GUI packaging tool makes the summary more prominent than the package name. The summary is often a better description for the end user when making a decision about installing. To make the user's experience better here, we try to have short succinct summaries that don't repeat the package name.

The summary needs to show differentiators that help the user choose which package to take a look at in more detail. Depending on the type of package we're looking at some of these should have different information than others. Libraries should also make clear what programming language they're useful for in addition to their claim to fame.

The summary should also be a noun phrase, for example "DVD and CD authoring software" rather than "Create video DVDs and CDs". For some packages it may be helpful to expand the package name that is an
acronym, e.g. for the package "gimp", the summary could be "GNU Image Manipulation Program".

Good examples:

* Package management service
* XQuery and XPath 2.0 library for Xerces-C
* Simple video DVD and CD authoring software
* Feature rich media player
* Media Player from the Mozilla Foundation
* Gstreamer based media player
* Customizable media player

Bad examples:

* System daemon that is a DBUS abstraction layer for package management (too verbose)
* XQilla is an XQuery and XPath 2.0 library, built on top of Xerces-C (repeating the program name)
* DeVeDe is a program to create video DVDs and CDs (VCD, sVCD or CVD) (to much detail)

Lots of people have already patched the summary in devel. If you've already patched your package, or think the summary of your package is fine (or you don't think it can be changed or made better), please close this bug with my sincere apologies. If you have any questions or just want me to commit a new summary and leave you alone, please feel free to email me back and ask me to do it.

Many thanks,

Richard Hughes

[1] where "bad" is defined by a simple hacky tool written by me, and isn't a reflection on you as a maintainer. :-)
Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 00:47:28 EST
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle.
Changing version to '10'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
Comment 2 Ngo Than 2009-09-07 09:46:52 EDT
the summary is fine and i don't think it's needed to be changed

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.