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

Re: Typos in dpkg man pages

On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 17:42:54 +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:36:35AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 22:34:28 +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > > #:../../man/dpkg-buildpackage.1:145
> > > -(for example by using B</usr/local/bin/make -f debian/rules> as I<rules-file>)
> > > +(for example by calling B</usr/local/bin/make -f debian/rules> to build the package)
> > 
> > I don't think this change is correct, as here it's referring to it as
> > an argument to a command line option.
> Well, as given I don't fully understand the paragraph. I assumed that
> this example should show that a different make file (here installed in
> /usr/local) could be used. Maybe you can clarify the wording in the
> sense you intend it to mean?

Here it's talking about using '/usr/local/bin/make -f debian/rules' as
a parameter for -R by replacing 'rules-file' in 'B<-R>I<rules-file>'.

> > > #: ../../man/dpkg-genchanges.1:85
> > > Here I noticed that for some man pages you use B<> to denote file
> > > names, while for others you use I<>. This possibly should be unified.
> > 
> > I'll put this in my TODO for the man pages and take a look later.
> For this one I'd be grateful if some kind of help for unfuzzing would
> be provided ;-))

Yes, sure.

> > > #: ../../man/start-stop-daemon.8:192
> > > -"specify a group by appending a B<:>, then the group or gid in the same way "
> > > +"specify a group by appending a B<:>, then describe the group or gid in the same way "
> > 
> > I don't think this change is correct either.
> Well, it is definitly missing a verb, so if "describe" is incorrect then
> insert the right one.

The omitted verb there is 'appending'.

Anyway, this is how I see it as a non-native speaker, and I might well
be wrong, so I welcome corrections to those, or any other parts of the
man pages!

> > Thanks for spotting those! they are now fixed in git.
> No problem. Are you updating the po files afterwards or is it ok if
> translators update the po files (in the latter case: anything to be
> careful?)?

I was waiting in case you or someone else had more comments, otherwise
I'll be updating them in a bit. I don't have any problem with
translators updating the .pot and .po files, as long as they are built
using the normal Debian package build, otherwise there's unneeded
changes due to different paths. If you are unsure about any part of the
process feel free to ask.


Reply to: