RFC: fix summary text for lots of packages

[Andrea Musuruane]

2008/11/21 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr>:
> No guideline doesn't mean that things cannot be improved.

Sure.

> The fact that it is not mandatory doesn't make it less important.

We have a set of guidelines that are common ground for reviews. What
it is proposed here is not yet included.

IMHO this proposal is not useful at all. As someone else already
pointed, following Richard's advice, xine, totem, mplayer, vlc would
all have the same description. Is this an improvement for the end
user? I don't think so. Is this an improvement for the packager? Not
at all.

Therefore, Summary is something that the packager should choose on his
own. It must be less than 80 characters and _maybe_ it should not
contain the package name. Everything else is just marketing. If
someone thinks that adding the fact that the application is based on
Gnome, it is fine for me. If someone else thinks that mentioning that
other application uses DBUS it is fine for me too.

Regards,

Andrea.