On Saturday 04 June 2016, at 12:23 +0100, Justin B Rye wrote: Hi! thanks again for the corrections. I will apply them to my patch so that I can suggest to Holger a cleaner patch. > > <sect1>Could you tell me whether to install stable, testing or unstable? > > > > <p>No, this is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer > > as it depends on the software needed, the users' needs > > -and the experience of its system administrator. Here are some tips: > > +and the experience of their system administrator. Here are some tips: > > </p> > > I'm not sure I follow this. What "needs" does the user have (that > Debian can help with) other than software? Are we imagining the > sysadmin as a different person from the user? If so then that's who > they should probably be asking for advice. I suspect this may have > been originally intended to mean: > > <p>No, this is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer > as it depends on your software needs and your experience in system > administration. Here are some tips: > > Or maybe: > > <p>No, this is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer > as it depends on your software needs, your willingness to deal with possible > breakage, and your experience in system administration. Here are some tips: Yes, I imagined it was including the scenario where there are several users and one sysadmin (even in a house PC there could be someone more PC-savy, I guess) who of course would be the one asking the question. I will use your first suggestion in my proposed patch and Holger or the maintainer of the document can decide on this. > > @@ -166,8 +167,8 @@ > > > > <p>The idea is that, if the package has any problems, it would be discovered by > > people using unstable and will be fixed before it enters testing. This keeps > > -the testing in an usable state for most period of the time. Overall a > > -brilliant concept, if you ask me. But things are always not so simple. Consider > > +the testing in an usable state for most of the time. Overall a > > No article before the quasi-name "testing"; and "usable" begins with a > consonant (you can't trust English orthography): > > testing in a usable state for most of the time. Overall a True! I did not spot those errors. I imagine that the whole document would benefit from an overall English review from a native speaker. > > @@ -253,15 +254,15 @@ > > <item>After some time testing becomes frozen. But it will still be called > > testing. At this point no new packages from unstable can migrate to testing > > unless they include release-critical (RC) bug fixes. > > - <item>When testing is frozen, all the new bugfixes introduced, have to be > > + <item>When testing is frozen, all the new bugfixes introduced have to be > > manually checked by the members of the release team. This is done to ensure > > - that there won't be any unknown severe problems in the frozen > > + that there won't be any unknown severe problem in the frozen > > testing. > > You've been changing "(not) any Xs" to "(not) any Y", enforcing a > grammar rule that modern English speakers generally ignore. Usually > it does no harm, but here it seems to me that it changes the sense > from "it won't have whatever-sort-of errors" to "it will have > absolutely no errors". Keep it as > > that there won't be any unknown severe problems in the frozen I did not know that grammar rule was not used. Anyway I really thought it wanted to say that it will try to guarantee that there will be zero unknown severe problems. I guess you never can be 100% sure, anyway I will apply your correction, of course. > [...] > > > linux system 'feels' etc., Knoppix is good for demonstration purposes while > ^ > Linux has a capital letter. In these days of Linux-based Android > devices I would prefer to credit the "feel" to "GNU/Linux". On this (GNU/Linux) I will let others decide. > > @@ -47,10 +47,9 @@ > > </list> > > > > <p>The development of binary distributions of Debian for > > -<em/armhf/ (for ARM boards and devices with a floating-point unit), > > <em/arv32/ (for Atmel's 32-bit RISC architecture), > > <em/m32/ (for 32-bit RISC microprocessor of Renesas Technology), > > -<em/s390x/ (for the 64-bit userland for IBM System z mainframes), and > > +and > > <em/sh/ (for Hitachi SuperH processors) > > is currently underway. > > Is it really? I was as "conservative" as I could in my corrections on this, since I have no first hand experience. I checked some Debian web pages. Those I removed here I did remove because they are now included in the released architectures or I added a note when I found it in the Release Notes. The page https://www.debian.org/ports/ indeed says that avr32 (not arv32 as it was spelled here) and m32 have been suspended/abandoned. Sh is listed as currently underway. Looking at that page I could propose to change that paragraph to «The development of binary distributions of Debian for hurd-i386 (for GNU Hurd kernel on i386 32 bit PCs), mips64el (for 64 bit MIPS in little-endian mode), or1k (for OpenRISC 1200 open source CPUs), powerpcspe (port for the "Signal Processing Engine" hardware), sparc64 (for 64 bit SPARC processors), sh (for Hitachi SuperH processors), and x32 (for amd64/x86_64 CPUs using 32-bit pointers) is currently underway.» But maybe it would be a good idea to just link to the "Ports" webpage. Holger or the document maintainer can decide on this. > This paragraph spells "organi?ation" inconsistently. Is the FAQ > localised or localized? I suspect half localised and half localized, as it often happens when more than one ppl work on the same document in the course of several years :) I will spell organization consistently in this paragraph in my patch. Thanks, beatrice
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature