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

Re: RFH: Description, manpage and more?!

[Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to the list.]

Hello Ben,
Ben Finney schrieb:
> Kai Wasserbäch <debian@carbon-project.org> writes:
>> I've a new package, skanlite, which is right now in the NEW queue [0].
>> I'd be glad, if some of you could check the short and long description
>> of the package,
> Sure, I'll put my comments in this message.

thank you!

>> have a look at the manpage (maybe write a new one, this is more or
>> less a very quick&dirty thing, just to silence lintian *g*)
> [Tools shall be appeased for peoples sake.]

Hm, I see my wording of the manpage part as poor. I did write it, because
lintian notified me, but not for lintian's sake. As might be seen from the fact,
that I've written a German manpage too.
The manpage follows the example of the one copied into the debian directory by
dh_make. So I think it's suitable/acceptable in general. But still, if someone
wants to do it better or just check the wording/typography I'll be much obliged.

> On to the package description:
>> Description: KDE4 image scanner based on the KSane backend
> I think the version of KDE might be redundant in the description; the
> user can trust that the dependencies will ensure the correct version of
> KDE libraries, so perhaps this should only mention that it's for KDE.

Ok, the reasoning was: in case there are crufts from some deb repository, which
still offers KDE3 applications, I'd like to show, that this application uses
only the KDE4 libraries and therefore integrates better into the DE.

> Why is it important to the reader whether this is “based on the KSane
> backend”? Does this help the reader decide whether to install the
> package? Is there some more explicit way of saying what this means for
> an install-or-not decision?

The reason for inclusion was to show it uses (K)SANE and doesn't reinvent the
wheel. Also it was meant to allow the user to easily judge, whether his scanner
is supported or not.

> This leaves me with a synopsis of:
>     image scanner for KDE

I'll use that as soon, as I get a reply to my reasoning above and whether that
were valid reasons.

>>  Skanlite is a small and simple scanner application for KDE4 which allows easy
>>  scanning of images with an attached scanner. Through the KSane backend it can
>>  access a wide variety of different scanner models.
> This is perfectly acceptable English.
> Is there anything more that can be said for distinguishing this package
> From other image scanner packages? “Small and simple” is rather
> over-used in package descriptions, is there any more specific
> description you can use instead?

»Small and simple«: I know, but in this case it's really true, just the main
window to scan, some colour/contrast correction sliders you can perfectly
ignore, if you don't care about that and the preview and scan buttons.

Another thing that might be said, that skanlite allows different colour depths,
correction of colour, contrast and brightness and different resolutions.

>>  Skanlite can be considered the replacement of Kooka.
> In what way can it be considered the replacement? Is it a direct
> successor, a fork, a re-write, or something else?

No direct successor in the way it was written by the same people as Kooka, but
it's the only (pure) image scanner included in KDE's extragear directory. And as
far as I can see, there is no effort made to build Kooka against KDE 4 (no
activity since 2003 really). Therefore skanlite assumes the place of Kooka. Thus
it is a replacement.

Another reason for me to name it as a replacement is: some packages went away
with the KDE3->4 transition and I had to manually search for the new name or
program that does the job. Therefore I liked to offer this replacement (which is
also expressed in the control part for package tools), so an easier KDE
transition can commence.

> The .po file:
>> # Copyright (C) YEAR This_file_is_part_of_KDE
>> # This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
> This needs to be completed truthfully with full copyright information
> (use the copyright symbol ©, year of publication, legal name of entity
> holding copyright); the boilerplate is useless.

I ask upstream about that (that is: who wrote it).

> [Points and »Title Case«]

I'll send that upstream.

>> #. i18n: file: settings.ui:86
>> #. i18n: ectx: property (text), widget (QLabel, label_2)
>> #: rc.cpp:27 rc.cpp:69
>> msgid "Name & Format:"
>> msgstr "Name & Format:"
> Unless space is extremely tight, I would recommend expanding the
> ampersand “&” to the full word “and”:
>     msgid "Name and Format:"
>     msgstr "Name and Format:"

I'll check how dire the space situation is and act accordingly.

>> #: rc.cpp:42
>> msgid "Your emails"
>> msgstr "andrew_coles@yahoo.co.uk"
> Note that email is a system, and makes no sense in the plural. The thing
> referred to in this message is an “email address”:

I'll change that and send it upstream too.

Before sending the corrected po file (i.e. except the copyright, where I can't
say with authority who should be named there) upstream, I'd like to ask the
l10n-english team for a review, just to be sure I didn't do something foolish. :)

Kind regards and thank you for your effort,
Kai Wasserbäch


Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech)

E-Mail: debian@carbon-project.org
Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt
URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden
GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2      0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: