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

Bug#619510: Debian Reference improvements

Package: debian-reference
Version: 2.46
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: <debian-doc@lists.debian.org>, <envite@rolamasao.org> 


Thanks for your review of my text.

In order not to loose this .... I am making this as a bug report.

Anyway, see the whole text of "1.2.1. Unix file basics":

When you only read PO file, you may miss larger structure. 

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:57:38PM +0000, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> While translating, I've encontered some bits that can be improved:
> #: debian-reference.en.xmlt:1472
> msgid "All <emphasis role=\"strong\">fully-qualified filenames</emphasis> 
> begin with the \"<literal>/</literal>\" directory, and there's a 
> \"<literal>/</literal>\" between each directory or file in the filename.  The 
> first \"<literal>/</literal>\" is the top level directory, and the other 
> \"<literal>/</literal>\"'s separate successive subdirectories, until we reach 
> the last entry which is the name of the actual file.  The words used here can 
> be confusing.  Take the following <emphasis role=\"strong\">fully-qualified 
> filename</emphasis> as an example: 
> \"<literal>/usr/share/keytables/us.map.gz</literal>\".  However, people also 
> refers to its basename \"<literal>us.map.gz</literal>\" alone as a filename."

I agree this is not the best text ...

> Should the example be explained? Text can be:
> ... which means file \"<literal>us.map.gz</literal>\" in the directory 
> \"<literal>keytables</literal>\" which is in the 
> directory\"<literal>share</literal>\", which in turn is into the directory 
> \"<literal>usr</literal>\" that you can find in the root (top level) directory 
> \"<literal>/</literal>\". However...

I fail to understand how exactly your suggested modification needs to be
done.  Also, repetitive "which" is annoying to my taste.

As I reread my text, I am assuming people know directory can be created
under another directory etc.  This is "*Unix* file basics" and I am
assuming people to know "file basics". 
> Other one is:
> #: debian-reference.en.xmlt:1477
> msgid "The root directory has a number of branches, such as 
> \"<literal>/etc/</literal>\" and \"<literal>/usr/</literal>\".  These 
> subdirectories in turn branch into still more subdirectories, such as 
> \"<literal>/etc/init.d/</literal>\" and \"<literal>/usr/local/</literal>\".  
> The whole thing viewed collectively is called the <emphasis 
> role=\"strong\">directory tree</emphasis>.  You can think of an absolute 
> filename as a route from the base of the tree (\"<literal>/</literal>\") to 
> the end of some branch (a file).  You also hear people talk about the 
> directory tree as if it were a <emphasis role=\"strong\">family</emphasis> 
> tree: thus subdirectories have <emphasis role=\"strong\">parents</emphasis>, 
> and a path shows the complete ancestry of a file.  There are also relative 
> paths that begin somewhere other than the root directory.  You should remember 
> that the directory \"<literal>../</literal>\" refers to the parent directory.  
> This terminology also applies to other directory like structures, such as 
> hierarchical data structures."
> Should be explicited that genealogy tree most senior node is / ? Text can be:

I thought it was written earlier.
> ...where the grandparent of all files and directories is the root directory 
> \"<literal>/</literal>\". There are...

Anyway, reviewing text in PO format is dificult.  Just before this text,
I see:

* The root directory means root of the filesystem referred as simply "/".
  Don't confuse this with the home directory for the root user: "/root".

* Every directory has a name which can contain any letters or symbols
  except "/". The root directory is an exception; its name is "/"
  (pronounced "slash" or "the root directory") and it cannot be renamed.

Should I repeat the same point?


Reply to: