Re: release notes for etch (it): please commit + a few notes and corrections
Hi Luca,
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:19:13PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
> Some minor notes and corrections follow.
>
> - line 147 quantify CDs and DVDs Debian ships on
You mean DVD numbers are missing?
> - line 199, 260: should "Desktop", "Standard" tasks be somehow tagged?
No.
> - line 208: "file systems" (only here; "filesystem" is used 4 times)
Good catch.
> - line 268: "up to $FIXME$ languages" -> does "up to" make sense?
Probably not. Removed.
> - line 340: "If you see display problems in the installer, you can try
> booting the installer" -> somebody might find this ugly!
I don't understand this.
> - line 439: "The upgrade has a few preconditions; you should check them
> before actually executing the upgrade." -> same as above
?
> - line 469: "Would download/install/remove packages." -> what does this
> mean?
Indeed, it's a funny aptitude string I do not understand either.
> - line 1021, 1049, 1174, 1175: no particular tags for "linux-" etc.
Hhm, yes. But the package names are incomplete so I do not change it for now.
> - line 1006: "you must upgrade to (at least) the 2.4 series, better to a
> 2.6 series" -> maybe parenthesis should be removed
I think it is OK.
> - line 1035: "'devfs'" -> "<tt/devfs/"?
Strings are normally not marked with <tt>.
> - line 1036: "using devfs" -> "using <prgn/devfs/"?
Yes.
> - line 1068: "the devices eth0 and eth1 refer" -> "<file/eth0/" etc.?
Don't know, maybe ...
> - line 1103: "at boottime" -> "at boot time"?
OK.
> - line 1128: "getty" -> "<tt>getty</tt>"?
I think the current usage is OK.
> - line 1147: "EFI boot option maintenance menu" -> "EFI <tt>Boot option
> maintenance menu</tt>"? (looks clearer in translations)
Is this string displayed verbatim by EFI?
> - line 1153: "Acpi(HWP0002,700)/Pci(...)/Uart" in the path ->
> <tt>Acpi(HWP0002,700)/Pci(...)/Uart</tt> in the path ?
Maybe, but not yet changed.
> - line 1164: "When you dist-upgrade" -> "When you
> <tt>dist-upgrade</tt>"?
>
> - line 1182: "if you see '2.4.27-3-686'" -> as above?
>
> - line 1184: "use apt-cache" -> "use <prgn>apt-cache</prgn>"?
Oh yes!
> - line 1184 "You may also use apt-cache to see a long description of
> each package" -> why not aptitude?
>
> - line 1321: "or we expose bugs somewhere else" -> not very
> understandable, at least for me
It should be save to replace "expose" with "find". Not (yet) changed.
> - line 1341: "<prgn>shutdown -h</prgn>" -> "<tt>shutdown -h</tt>"?
OK. Not very important, especially as both is rendered the same way and
translators will get fuzzy strings but I agree!
> - line 1342: "apm needs to be used" -> any tag for "apm"?
I don't think so. There doesn't exist a tag for every string :-)
> - line 1354: "There has been support added" -> "Support has been added"?
Yes.
> - line 1591: "the README file" -> "the <file>README</file> file"
I'm not sure whether README or the README* collection should be used
here.
> - line 1615, 1616: "SSL", "ssl" -> "<tt/SSL/", "<tt/ssl/"?
I have to confess that I do not understand this paragraph.
> - line 1641: "mozilla products" -> "Mozilla products"
Yes.
> Moreover, sometimes <item>s in <list>s don't contain <p>s, sometimes
> aren't even closed: is this correct?
It is, using it is preferred, but ...
Feel free to check wha I forget/did wrong ...
Thanks,
Jens
Reply to: