Quoting Guillem Jover (guillem@debian.org):
> > - If you do have a card based on one of the listed chipsets please file a
> > - bug on this package, including the output from the command 'lspci -vm' in
> > - the bug report.
> > + If the graphical card in this computer does not use one of these
> > + chipsets, and you are not compiling programs against glide,
> > + this package will be useless.
> > + .
> > + If the graphical card is based on one of these chipsets, you
> > + should report a bug against this package, including the output from the
> > + "lspci -vm" command.
> > .
> > - Would you like to manually select the driver to use for now? (If not, a
> > - default sane value for compiling against will be selected.)
> > + Please choose whether you want to manually select the driver to use for now.
>
> Why the switch from "please" to "should"?
Mostly because of the rewording, but I think that both have the same
weight. "Please report" or "you should report" have, IMHO, the same
level of urgency.
>
> Why the switch from single quotes to double quotes for the lspci command?
This is something we discussed in former reviews. The standard for
en_US is definitely double quotes for quoting and our reviews are
standardized on en_US spelling and typography....even if the main
reviewers are British (except /me of course)..:-)
>
> > Turn "you should not have this package" into "this package becomes
> > useless". After all, I do what I want and I'm perfectly entitled to
> > have a package that's useless..:-)
>
> I'd prefer something like "this pakages becomes not useful", instead
> of "useless", the latter seems pretty strong. :)
OK. Would seem fair. Justin, is "becomes not useful" the right way to
write it in English ?
>
> > Turn "file a bug" into "report a bug".
>
> Or "file a bug report"?
My original intent was that "file a bug" is kind of jargonic. I think
that "filing" something might also be hard to understand for someone
not very savvy with usual jargon, but I might be wrong, here.
>
> > Template: libglide2/driver
> > Type: select
> > Choices: cvg, h3
> > Default: ${default}
> > -_Description: Please select a driver.
> > - Please select the driver you would like to use.
> > - .
> > - cvg - Voodoo 2.
> > - h3 - Voodoo Banshee and Voodoo 3.
> > +_Description: Driver for 3D acceleration:
> > + Please select the driver you would like to use for 3D acceleration:
> > + - cvg: Voodoo 2;
> > + - h3 : Voodoo Banshee and Voodoo 3.
>
> > Use recommended itemization style and do not make it a separate paragraph.
>
> Please use '*'. I've always got the impression that was the most used
> itemization style in Debian, the recent numbers posted on debian-devel
> confirms that, and I'm guessing the Smith project in a way might have
> slightly turned the balance on those numbers.
I followed that discussion and I understand the argument.
I would prefer an argument from a typographical reference here.
I think that the best reference for this would be the Chicago Manual
of Style. I suspect we might end up with asterisks, though.
>
> > Package: libglide2
> > @@ -29,15 +29,15 @@
> > Description: graphics library for 3Dfx Voodoo based cards - shared libraries
> > This package allows you to use the 3D functions of cards based on
> > 3dfx Interactive, Inc's Voodoo 2 chipsets. You should install it if
> > - you have such a card.
> > + you use such a card.
> > .
> > - Note, this is NOT the package you want for Voodoo Banshee, Voodoo 3,
> > - Voodoo 4, or Voodoo 5.
> > + This package is not useful with Voodoo Banshee, Voodoo 3,
> > + Voodoo 4, or Voodoo 5 cards.
> > .
> > - Also note that for the moment the original Voodoo Graphics chipset
> > + Additionnally, the original Voodoo Graphics chipset
> > is no longer supported.
> > .
> > - NOTE: You'll need the /dev/3dfx kernel driver to use this library.
> > + You'll need the /dev/3dfx kernel driver to use this library.
> >
> > Do not yell..:-). Instead of "not the package you want", just use "not
> > useful". Again, I could want a package even if it's useless...
>
> Same comment as the previous "useless" one.
>
> > We generally recommend dropping "NOTE:" stuff.
>
> Why? I don't have a strong feeling about it, but it seems to make it
> easier to visually mark this kind of out-of-band dependency information.
In general, the reasoning is that separating in a paragraph is enough
for the notice to be visible and we do our best to discourage the use
of all-capitals letters (yelling, etc.). That also goes with a general
stance where texts should be as neutral as possible and avoid carrying
"emotional" charge...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature