RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 20:03:34 UTC 2008


On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri November 21 2008, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 17:10 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > On Fri November 21 2008, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > > * System daemon that is a DBUS abstraction layer for package management
> > > > (too verbose)
> > >
> > > I disagree that "Package management framework" would be a better summary
> > > instead of above, because imho it is a useful information that it is a
> > > daemon and uses DBUS.
> >
> > Right, framework just sounded a more complete word than daemon. Maybe
> > "Package management service" might be a better name.
> 
> How about "DBUS-based package management service"?

Is the fact that it uses D-Bus *really* that important to an end user to
warrant putting it in the summary?

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet at gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081121/73b253e8/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list