Re: Question on title and explanation of shuffles

[Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 06:15:58PM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> 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.

Footnote 12
  
> > 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!

It is discussed in debian-devel now.  90 is the top limit for file
names.

> > 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.

Oh, yes.

Osamu