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

-dev package descriptions (was Re: Request for review: xz-utils package description)

Maybe you could help with this nit:

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> Package: liblzma-dev
>  The native format of liblzma is XZ; it also supports raw
>  (headerless) streams and the older LZMA format used by lzma, but
>  not 7-Zip’s related format (see the package p7zip).  This package
>  allows one to build software using liblzma.

I don’t think it should matter in practice (the name of the package
says everything needed already), but I think I am conveying the wrong
idea here.  “Allows one” is nothing but code for “allows you”, since
the actual user may not be installing the package but using its
contents.  What the reader needs to know is

	If this package is installed, code using liblzma
	should build, provided its other compile-time dependencies
	are satisfied as well.

I tried “This package provides files needed to build software using
liblzma”, but that seems to leave open the possibility that other
files might be needed, too.

There is nothing particular to liblzma here, of course.  Other package
descriptions use a variety of wordings, but I couldn’t discern a best
practice among them.  What is the usual approach?


Reply to: