Quoting Justin B Rye (firstname.lastname@example.org): Justin, first of all, thanks for getting involved in this effort. It's really appreciated to see people chose native language is English to be interested in this effort. (and, yes, the above sentence is quite probably not grammatically correct...) > Christian Perrier wrote: > > If someone wants to pick up this review, please answer to this mail, > > in the mailing list, with an [ITR] (Intent To Review) label. > > Like this? Partly, yes. The ITR mail is intended to just "mark" that you volunteer to do the work. The real review work should later be sent in a "RFR" mail (Request For Review). That mail should contain the *entire* debconf templates file as well as the debian/control file after you review and change the original file(s). As a convenience for other reviewers, adding a unified diff file of changes you propose will help spotting what are your proposed changes. In my own RFR, I also CC <package>@packages.debian.org so that the package maintainer is/are aware of the planned changes and may comment. > In unified-diff format: So, actually, I do not fully consider your proposal as an entire review. Definitely, these changes have to be incorporated in the texts but, as explained above, a review should include more. > ====================================================================== > --- templates~ 2007-04-02 23:24:49.000000000 +0100 > +++ templates 2007-04-02 23:25:47.000000000 +0100 > @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ > _Description: Name of the database superuser: Such things need to be standardised all over Debian, for instance. It is more common practice to talk about the "database *server* _administrator_" when one wants to get the MySQL or PostgreSQL root account. > The superuser name is required so this script can connect to your database > and add users, databases and tables. This user needs administrator > - privledges on the database. It is most often not the superuser for the > - Unix account (eg root). > + privileges on the database. It is most often not the Unix superuser account > + (ie root). > > Template: mnogosearch-common/database_admin_pass > Type: password > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ > _Description: Username for your database: This also need standardisation. Indeed, the dbconfig-common package exists precisely to avoid maintainers reinvent the wheel and use their own wording to prompt users about the very sam thing over and over in various ways. Here, we should propose: 1) the package maintainer to use dbconfig-common (already done for a few packages by myself in sarge->etch development cycle 2) propose the wording of dbconfig-common in the meantime (some pkg maintainers are not keen to use dbconfig-common because they are either lazy...or have concerns about it to be a good package) > 1) s/privledges/privileges/ - a simple spelling error. > 2) the reference to "the superuser for the Unix account" seems > confused; what's intended is something like "the superuser > account for the Unixlike system", or more straightforwardly, > "the Unix superuser account". > 3) s/eg/ie/ - it isn't "the superuser, such as for example (Exempli > Gratia) root", it's "the superuser, that is (Id Est) root". > 4) s/it's/its/ - the possessive pronoun, not the contraction.
Description: Digital signature