Hi, (incomplete quick look) On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 04:41:19PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > On 21-May-2016, Ben Finney wrote: > > I will prepare a change set to correct the documentation, code > > comments, and messages emitted by APT. > > These changes are in the Git branch at > <URL:https://notabug.org/bignose/debian_apt/src/wip/issue/824908/terminology-header-fields>. Could you please split especially the first one up more? As an example, your changes in the context of gpgv are incorrect as the official term in rfc2440 for the "key-value pairs" is "Armor Header" not field as you suggest and even if that is grossly inconsistent I don't think its a good idea to change this. In the context of http(-like) the more correct term might be "header fields" which you use sometimes (then you replaced a 'line'), but not always. In comments just "fields" might be correct much like the RFC uses it in long paragraphs where its clear what is meant, but in error messages we should perhaps be using the full term. (btw: the registry for "Message Header Field Names" is called "Message Headers", so using "headers" isn't as inconsistent as you make it sound) Changing the tests/integration/status-* files is interesting in so far as you are modifying the descriptions of actual packages (which might or might not be changed in the meantime). Changing to "LSB fields" is in sofar interesting as even the "official doc" [0] isn't clear on which term is preferred. I guess they are to be treated as http-like. Either way, I don't see much point in changing testdata, but with the rest… In the documentation you do typo/style fixes (FDs, URIs, HTTP, …) which should be fixed in the translations (doc/po) as well to avoid needless fuzzies. Some of the http->HTTP changes are wrong as these parts are talking about the method named 'http', not the protocol 'HTTP'. > For consistency, the function names and other API should be changed > (so that, for example, the collection of header fields is not named > ‘headers’, or that an individual field is not named ‘header’). Well, as usual, we can't easily change public API so I would like to avoid that for the moment… we could look into it after stretch. If it is non-public like in methods/ you could run wild… Best regards David Kalnischkies [0] https://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature