Re: Comments regarding new strings
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 19:51:12 +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> while updating the man page translation I noticed the following:
> #: deb-control.5:133
> msgid ""
> "This field is used to indicate how this package should behave on a multi-"
> "arch installations. The value B<same> means that the package is co-"
> "installable with itself, but it must not be used to satisfy the dependency "
> "of any package of a different architecture from itself. The value B<foreign> "
> "means that the package is not co-installable with itself, but should be "
> "allowed to satisfy the dependency of a package of a different arch from "
> "itself. The value B<allowed> allows reverse-dependencies to indicate in "
> "their Depends field that they accept a package from a foreign architecture, "
> "but has no effect otherwise. The value B<no> is the default when the field "
> "is omitted, in which case the field is generally not needed."
> The last sentence sounds strange. If the field is omitted then it is not needed?
What I meant here is that there's usually no point in making the value
“no” explicit by adding the field, as that's the default value if the
field is omitted. This is similar to the “Essential: no” case. I'll
try to reword it a bit.
> #: dpkg-buildpackage.1:67
> msgid ""
> "It runs the B<postclean> and if B<-tc> is specified, it will call B<fakeroot "
> "debian/rules clean> again."
> The word "hook" is missing (it is mentioned in all similar expressions
> in the vincinity).
Indeed, fixing it locally, thanks.
> #: dpkg-buildpackage.1:218
> msgid "Pass option I<opt> to I<check-command>."
> I belive it should be B<check-command>?
Nope, that check-command is the option argument, which in this case
could be, say, lintian, so those options get passed to that command.
I'll also try to reword this a bit.
Thanks for the review.