Re: Library vs. libraries
Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de> writes:
> Mostly, the short description contains library and the long
> description contains "libraries". Often the package list shows a name
> with different extensions in /usr/lib - a library and a number of
> symbolic links. For me it's just a library with multiple names.
I agree with your analysis.
> A short example:
>
> # http://packages.debian.org/sid/i386/libgck0/filelist
> # Filelist of package libgck0 in sid of architecture i386
> # /usr/lib/libgck.so.0
> # /usr/lib/libgck.so.0.0.0
> # /usr/share/doc/libgck0/AUTHORS
> # ...
[…]
> Description: Glib wrapper library for PKCS#11 - runtime
> GCK is a wrapper based on GLib implementing the PKCS#11 (Cryptoki)
> interface.
> .
> This package contains the shared libraries needed to run programs
> built against the GCK library.
>
> ###########################################################
That suggests, to me, that the text was cut-and-pasted from other
packages without regard to the agreement of plural/singular usage.
The long description should have the ‘s/libraries/library/’ operation
done, IMO. Which implies that the package description would need to be
updated at a future time when the package contains multiple distinct
libraries.
> I'm too pedantic? I have not noticed anything? Or is it a common
> mistake?
It's probably a common mistake, since it's common to construct a package
description by cut-and-paste from existing packages.
It may be too pedantic, but I think it's worth reporting a bug (at
“wishlist” severity).
--
\ “The Vatican is not a state.… a state must have people. There |
`\ are no Vaticanians.… No-one gets born in the Vatican except by |
_o__) an unfortunate accident.” —Geoffrey Robertson, 2010-09-18 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: