[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some suggestions for changes to w.d.o/CD/faq entries

On Monday 09 January 2012 01:12:34 Andrei Popescu wrote:


> [Not CC-ing you since I assume you are subscribed]

Correct, we are both subscribed to debian-cd list, but we don't mind one or 
more duplicated messages, so an extra CC would not be a big problem :)

> > I don't mind the wording as you suggest it (JFTR: it was cooked up by
> > me and Thomas). Well, the whole idea is to read back the appropriate
> > amount of bytes from the burnt media (this is the tricky part), well
> > and piping these to a checksummer (the trivial part).
> > 
> > There is a separate patch waiting for review and approval at:
> > 
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2011/12/msg00032.html
> > 
> > which explanins the problem and how to deal with it. This is reading back
> > by: a) isosize and dd
> > b) check_debian_iso script Thomas has developed.
> Actually I saw that patch on -www, but completely forgot about it. At a
> quick glance it seems quite comprehensive, but I wonder if it is
> adequate for the FAQ, or if it would be better to have a separate page
> for it.

Well, "how to verify a written media" seem like a proper entry for a CD FAQ 
list. There is no much theory behind it, the trick is to perform a proper 
read, which is also illustrated with examples. As to a separate page, it is 
fine with me, but it won't gain us much IMO.

> Besides, it doesn't address the "checkreading" which doesn't seem to be
> an English word. Even if it is the technically correct term for what is
> going on I doubt FAQ readers actually care and would suggest to avoid it
> (also for the sake of translators). You might also want to CC
> -l10n-english on such patches ;)

Okay, I had a short discussion on IRC#debian-l10n about it, and it seems a 
better alternative to "checkreading" would be "proofreading" [1]. 

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proofreading

Again, with proofreading (i.e. our former checkreading) we address the user 
action of deliberate reading of an appropriate amount of bytes from the burnt 
media (think 'dd'). This has nothing to do with the "Defect Management" 
mechanism, which DVD-RAM and BD-RE drives perform internally. We are better off 
performing and trusting the former, and not rely on the latter.

> Any opinions about my other suggestions?

Well, since I don't object them, I don't mind them. These look fine, but let 
others comment too.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

Reply to: