Re: Question on title and explanation of shuffles
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Question on title and explanation of shuffles
- From: Osamu Aoki <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:18:35 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20110501021835.GA5033@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <20110430171558.GA6653@xibalba.demon.co.uk>
- References: <20110417052254.GA8903@debian.org> <20110417104759.GA19378@xibalba.demon.co.uk> <20110428073512.GA5215@xibalba.demon.co.uk> <20110428123754.GA17922@debian.org> <20110428143159.GA12196@xibalba.demon.co.uk> <20110430061739.GA19801@debian.org> <20110430171558.GA6653@xibalba.demon.co.uk>
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.
> > 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
> > 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.