Re: [RFR] templates://nut/{nut.templates}
Arnaud Quette wrote:
> a 2nd one to have in mind for the Desc field, since I haven't had time to work
> on this specific point:
> prior to 2.4, NUT was only support UPSs. As of 2.4, it also supports PDUs
> (either through the nut-snmp package or nut-powerman-pdu). You might want to
> integrate that point.
Perhaps by amending the boilerplate like this:
NUT is a client/server monitoring system that allows computers to share
- uninterruptible power supply (UPS) hardware. The server monitors the UPS
- and notifies its clients when the UPS is on or has a low battery.
+ uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and power distribution unit (PDU)
+ hardware. The server monitors the UPS and notifies its clients when the
+ UPS is on or has a low battery.
As a knock-on effect, nut-powerman-pdu wouldn't need to expand "PDU":
This package provides powerman-pdu, which allows NUT clients to communicate
- with the PowerMan daemon to support Power Distribution Units.
+ with the PowerMan daemon to support PDUs.
But meanwhile it occurs to me that "when the UPS is on" in the
boilerplate may not be the best way to put it. The UPS is never
"off"; the question is whether it's... in use? Active? What's the
word?
> A last one for the spelling case of NUT: please use Network UPS Tools with
> capitalised first letter.
(In synopsis lines, that is.) The idea is that as well as being the
software's full name, "network UPS tools" also happens to work as a
self-description, and descriptive phrases in the package synopsis
don't need capital letters. On the other hand of course
capitalising it would be an extra hint that the words are an
expansion of the acronym.
I suppose it also makes a difference to translators; are they
expected to preserve the English initialism, or even perhaps the
entire English name, or do they translate the short description into
"outils d'ASI de réseau" or whatever it is?
>> Please read /usr/share/doc/nut/UPGRADING.gz for the upgrading procedure.
>
> (This is outside d-l-e jurisdiction, but shouldn't it be somewhere
> that apt-listchanges will see?)
>
> note that it's also referenced in README.Debian.
Yes, and that file _isn't_ monitored by apt-listchanges. Still, I
imagine it's mentioned in the changelog.
>> Package: nut-cgi
>> Recommends: apache | httpd
>
> (Surely httpd-cgi?)
>
> ? not sure to understand your remark here.
Compare the web server "boa" (which "Provides: httpd, httpd-cgi")
with "micro-httpd" (which only "Provides: httpd"). Will nut-cgi
work on the web servers that don't support CGI? My guess is no.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: