Re: Question on title and explanation of shuffles
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> But the way, here are what I did after pondering on your comments.
> (URL link should work after 4 hours.)
Okay, I've finally checked out an updated copy of maint-guide.en.dbk
so I can give a further proofreading patch.
By the way, last time I corrected an "old Roman saying" to an "old
Latin saying", since it was a quote (in Latin) from one particular
writer; this time you've added another "old Latin saying". In this
case is happens to also be a genuine "old Roman saying", in that the
Romans regarded it as traditional!
> S2.1 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/first.en.html#workflow
[...]
> S2.4 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/first.en.html#simplemake
> Added stronger message to read the references if Autotools tool chain is used.
I don't see this online.
> S2.6 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/first.en.html#namever
> Renewed content. Together with S1.1, old terminology section is replaced.
I've inserted the word "(source)" before the first use of the term
"package name". By the way, while it's certainly a requirement, I
don't see any rule in policy prohibiting a new source package called
"dpkg" or "3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510..." -
the rules about uniqueness and finite length are only stated for
binary packages!
> S7.1 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/checkit.en.html#inadvent
> Added to address typical 3.0 (quilt) format mistakes.
> I was wondering to use "Suspicious changes" or "Inadvent changes".
I assume you mean "inadvertent", which would fit in context.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: