Comment 9 for bug 1180899

Just as you have confused the package name with the actual name, you also seem to be confusing the synopsis with the description as a whole. You claim that a package description is "the phrase with which a package introduces itself", with an implicit "I am a/an" in front of it. Presumably you meant the synopsis, not the whole description; but regardless, I see no evidence for that anthropomorphism.

You also claim that "the description extends on the package name and does not (and need not) make sense without it". But that is directly contradicted by the policy: "in many situations the user may only see the synopsis line - make it as informative as you can". That is precisely the case here: the synopsis is all Software Updater shows by default.

Now, if Debian policy prohibited (1) the package name from being the actual name (as it often does), (2) the synopsis from including anything similar to the package name, and (3) any separate standard field from containing the actual name, then the policy would be perverse. The only way for the software's real name to appear in a software listing would be to ensure that the package name was substantially different from the real name, just so that the real name could be included in the synopsis! To return to the Bazaar example, the Bazaar package could have the synopsis "Bazaar version control system" if its package name was "bzr", but not if its package name was "bazaar".

Fortunately it's not the policy being perverse, just lintian. The synopsis aready does include the actual name in the X.Org X WIndow System and JACK Audio Connection Kit examples I gave.