For the binary packages libegl-mesa, libegl1-mesa-dbg, libegl1-mesa-dev, libegl1-mesa-drivers, and libegl1-mesa-drivers-dbg:
1. The package titles (Synopses) don't even mention Mesa. They all start with "Free implementation of the EGL API --", which is makes them look identical in a list of software updates. <https://twitter.com/dylanmccall/status/306619770525061120>
I suggest that they be changed to "Mesa OpenGL Graphics", "Mesa OpenGL Graphics — debugging symbols", "Mesa OpenGL Graphics — hardware drivers", and so on.
2. The package descriptions all seem to contradict themselves. They all have a first paragraph that begins "This package contains the EGL native platform graphics interface library", but then have a second paragraph that begins "This package contains..." followed by their actual contents. If the packages *together* make up the library, then the first sentence would be better as "...contains part of of...", but better still would be a sentence describing what Mesa actually is.
For the binary packages libegl-mesa, libegl1-mesa-dbg, libegl1-mesa-dev, libegl1- mesa-drivers, and libegl1- mesa-drivers- dbg:
1. The package titles (Synopses) don't even mention Mesa. They all start with "Free implementation of the EGL API --", which is makes them look identical in a list of software updates. <https:/ /twitter. com/dylanmccall /status/ 306619770525061 120>
I suggest that they be changed to "Mesa OpenGL Graphics", "Mesa OpenGL Graphics — debugging symbols", "Mesa OpenGL Graphics — hardware drivers", and so on.
2. The package descriptions all seem to contradict themselves. They all have a first paragraph that begins "This package contains the EGL native platform graphics interface library", but then have a second paragraph that begins "This package contains..." followed by their actual contents. If the packages *together* make up the library, then the first sentence would be better as "...contains part of of...", but better still would be a sentence describing what Mesa actually is.