| Summary: | All recipes should have a 'appropriate' SUMMARY | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Build System, Metadata & Runtime] OE-Core | Reporter: | Belen Barros Pena <belen.barros.pena> | ||||
| Component: | core | Assignee: | Saul Wold <sgw> | ||||
| Status: | VERIFIED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | enhancement | ||||||
| Priority: | Medium | CC: | alexandru.c.georgescu, bluelightning, jessica.zhang, meta.mr.watcher, meta.watcher | ||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | 1.5 | ||||||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||||||
| OS: | Multiple | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- | ||||
| Verified: | Documentation change: | --- | |||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Belen Barros Pena
2012-10-16 14:51:10 UTC
The main reason we want to do this: the default "${PN} version ${PV}" SUMMARY is pretty much useless, and even if DESCRIPTION is set it is still useful to have a short description to be shown by package management utilities. We also need to consider setting an appropriate SUMMARY value for additional packages that are split out in some recipes (and DESCRIPTION if none is set for those).
DESCRIPTION is currently set to the value of SUMMARY if DESCRIPTION isn't set explicitly, however I have wondered about whether we should try to go the other way if DESCRIPTION is set and SUMMARY isn't (e.g. by taking the first line or the first n characters), since this seems to me to be the most common case - a lot of recipes have a short DESCRIPTION set and no SUMMARY. Then again, it would be a quick change just to add SUMMARY to all of these recipes using a script, thus allowing DESCRIPTION to be extended on a per-recipe basis in future without disturbing the short SUMMARY.
Saul, Seems we need some underline changes before things can happen for hob Created attachment 1107 [details]
hob-info-windows.pdf
I've attached the document that shows the information we are currently using in Hob, and how it's displayed, just in case they are relevant. We have made a couple of adjustments during implementation, but in general the design spec still applies.
Just a dup of bug 1804. I am working on that one with Scott R, so no need to keep this one. Marking as resolved - duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1804 *** Verified as per above comments. |