Re: Bug#64197: dict-vera: imore definitions
Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Package: dict-vera
> Version: 4.7-1
> Severity: wishlist
> I would like to see the following definitions added. This is from my debian
> dictionary project, which I am dropping in light of this package. The only
> problem is that a few of them tell the debian meaning of some words like
> "upstream" -- I don't know if that is a good thing or not.
> A release of a package by someone other than its usual
> <sample>The bug was fixed in a recent NMU</sample>
> A file, ending in ".deb" that contains a Debian
> binary package.
> A member of the Debian project.
> A member of the Debian project who looks after a Debian package.
> A Debian package without a maintainer.
> To take a pristine upstream source and make the necessary
> modifications to allow it to be built as a policy compliant
> Debian package.
The vera package is supposed to be about acronyms, and the only
one of these that is an acronym is NMU. However, IMHO, these are all
worthy of being available in a convenient form for Debian users and
members. I don't share your concern about the special meaning of
`upstream', since the definitions, like the Debian specific acronyms,
would be flagged as such.
I could add these to dict-vera, and make the package description
read something like "a dictionary of computer-related acronyms and
Debian specific definitions", or I could make a separate package.
Unless someone has a lot more Debian specific definitions to suggest,
it would be a very small package. If I did so, I would make it as
part of the dict-vera tree, and would make two debs - dict-vera and
I have copied this to -devel to solicit opinions from the
developers on how to handle this, and suggestions for additional
Debian specific terms to include. `source package' and `binary
package' are two that come to mind.
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <email@example.com>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9