Re: [RFR] templates://xfonts-traditional/{xfonts-traditional.templates}
Christian PERRIER writes ("[RFR] templates://xfonts-traditional/{xfonts-traditional.templates}"):
> Please find, for review, the debconf templates and packages
> descriptions for the xfonts-traditional source package.
Thanks for your attention to this package.
Earlier, I received a bug report without a review. I closed that bug
report because it didn't seem to be suggesting any changes in the
package.
Now, you send me a review but not as a bug report. Surely these kind
of reviews should be filed as bug reports in the BTS ? Probably with
some low severity unless you discover serious problems.
> This review will last from Thursday, February 09, 2012 to Sunday, February 19, 2012.
>
> Please send reviews as unified diffs (diff -u) against the original
> files. Comments about your proposed changes will be appreciated.
>
> Your review should be sent as an answer to this mail.
>
> When appropriate, I will send intermediate requests for review, with
> "[RFRn]" (n>=2) as a subject tag.
>
> When we will reach a consensus, I send a "Last Chance For
> Comments" mail with "[LCFC]" as a subject tag.
>
> Finally, the reviewed templates will be sent to the package maintainer
> as a bug report, and a mail will be sent to this list with "[BTS]" as
> a subject tag.
I'm not sure who these comments are directed to. They don't seem to
be directed to me as maintainer, surely ? But why are they then in
this message ?
Given all this attention to the exact phrasing in package
descriptions, it might be good to think about phrasing of the messages
which carry those suggestions.
On to the substantive comments:
> Here, I tried to avoid the leading lowercase implied by using the
> package name as first sentence word.
IMO this is a perfectly correct usage.
> I'm not entirely happy with the result as it involves passive
> form....but I prefer this over a version where it seems that
> packages do things or can "have an idea" about things, while this is
> indeed the maintainer scripts...or the maintainer himself..:-)
I think it is perfectly fine to talk about packages doing or having
an idea about things. Perhaps it would be better to talk about
xfonts-traditional having "knowledge of" glyphs but actually its ideas
about glyphs are vaguer than that.
> -_Description: Configure xterm to use traditional font?
> +_Description: Configure xterm to use a traditional font?
> Synopsis: article or not article? I'm balanced. As a french person, I
> tend to ass an article. Would this package maintainer be Japanese, I
> would say he's wrong by not using an article..:-).... But he is a
> native speaker, so he might be right. We need another native speaker
> to give an advice.
I think the Description summary line is akin to a headline and it is
therefore it is acceptable to leave out articles etc.
However, you have caused me to notice that this summary is inaccurate
now, because there are now several fonts involved rather than just one
so it should be the plural.
> - Alternatively, if you do not want me to change the default, I will
> - generate XTerm.trad for you to do what you like with.
> + Alternatively, if you do not want to change the default, XTerm.trad
> + will be created but not used.
The point about it not being used is good and I will improve this.
> To revert the change, simply change the key "*VT100.utf8Fonts.font"
> back from "-trad-..." to "-misc-...", or rename the old file back
> Other changes are trying to avoid a very lengthy parenthesis and first
> person use.
"conffile" and "configuration file" are not quite the same.
There is nothing wrong with a computer speaking to the user in the
first person. Indeed, for the computer to do so often makes matters
clearest. It avoids circumlocutions and produces clear and plain
language.
I don't think the parenthetical comment is overly long.
> - You can have the font alias "fixed" remapped to the traditional version.
> + The "fixed" font alias can be remapped to the traditional version.
This construction is indeed unfortunate. I should have used the first
person rather than the circumlocution involving the second.
> - To revert the change to the default, simply change the alias "fixed"
> + To revert the change, simply change the alias "fixed"
> back from "-trad-..." to "-misc-...", or rename the old file back
> into place.
I agree that this had some unnecessary verbiage.
> -_Description: Remove anyway, breaking "fixed" and your X server?
> +_Description: Remove xfonts-traditional, breaking "fixed" and the X server?
> Remind the package name in synopsis, in case the removal question
> happens to show up among other debconf questions, if the removal
> happens during a b ig purge of many packages?
Good point.
> - Removing xfonts-traditional would break your X server by removing "fixed".
> + Removing xfonts-traditional would break the X server by removing "fixed".
> .
> You should not remove xfonts-traditional while "fixed" refers to one
> - of its fonts. You probably want to check the differences between the
> + of its fonts. You first need to check the differences between the
Double space after "." is correct.
> various /etc/X11/fonts/misc/xfonts-base.alias*, reconcile any changes,
> - and then run "update-fonts-alias misc". After that you can retry the
> - removal.
> + and then run "update-fonts-alias misc".
...
> Dropping the last sentence that sems useless to me.
I don't think it's obvious, so I'll leave it in.
> -Description: Traditional fixed-width fonts for X
> +Description: traditional fixed-width fonts for X
>
> uncapitalization
Why ? This seems entirely wrong to me.
> - Provides "traditional" versions of fixed-width fonts.
> + This package provides "traditional" versions of fixed-width fonts.
> .
> These are a set of 6x13 fonts (including "fixed"), with foundry name
> "trad" instead of "misc", with several glyphs replaced with earlier
>
> Use a "This package <blabla>" style.
Why ? That's just unnecessary verbiage.
> @@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
> - traditional appearance of W a
> .
> These changes make the fonts compatible with the US-ASCII character
> - set. (UTF-8 is not compatible with ASCII in its usage of the
> - backquote and some other characters.) With these fonts, pre-2000
> + set, as UTF-8 is not compatible with ASCII in its usage of the
> + backquote and some other characters. With these fonts, pre-2000
> documents (including ASCII art and GNU manuals) will render
> correctly.
What's wrong with parentheses ? You seem to dislike them.
You may note that I've sent a separate mail about some of the wider
issues here to debian-devel CC debian-l10n-english.
Thanks,
Ian.
Reply to: