Re: [RFR] templates://xfonts-traditional/{xfonts-traditional.templates}
I suspect it would be a waste of effort producing a patch just yet.
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Type: boolean
> Default: true
> _Description: Generate traditional versions of fonts?
> - xfonts-traditional can automatically generate traditional versions
> - (with foundry "Trad" instead of "Misc" of all fonts for which it has
> - an idea about the glyphs. (Currently this is versions of 6x13, aka
> - "fixed").
> + It is possible to generate traditional versions
> + (with foundry "Trad" instead of "Misc") of all fonts when it is
> + possible to figure out what has to be done for glyphs.
> + This can be done currently for 6x13, aka "fixed".
> .
> - But you may prefer not to do this automatically, and would rather
> + You may prefer not to do this automatically, and would rather
> just have the tool installed.
>
>
> Here, I tried to avoid the leading lowercase implied by using the
> package name as first sentence word. 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..:-)
How about shifting it out of the way by just prepending an "If"
clause? Except that I can't find one that sounds natural.
Oh, how about this as a way of displacing xf-t from subject position
without being passive-aggressive about it:
With xfonts-traditional it is possible to automatically generate
traditional versions (with foundry "Trad" instead of "Misc") of all
fonts where it is clear what needs to be done. Currently this means
versions of 6x13, also known as "fixed".
(Avoiding the question of "aka" versus "A.K.A.")
> - But you may prefer not to do this automatically, and would rather
> + You may prefer not to do this automatically, and would rather
> just have the tool installed.
I liked Ian's version better, but the "would rather" is a bit murky
(what would it say if nothing was being elided in the second clause -
"and you may would rather"?)... so I'd suggest flipping it round:
But you may prefer just to have the tool installed and not to do
this automatically.
(By the way, note that this is an example of an "if you wish" phrasing
not being worth the effort of avoiding.)
> Template: xfonts-traditional/reconfigure-xterm
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> -_Description: Configure xterm to use traditional font?
> +_Description: Configure xterm to use a traditional font?
> You can have the xterm default UTF-8 font changed to the traditional
> version.
> .
> - If you approve, I will edit /etc/X11/app-default/XTerm for you, and
> - save your old file as XTerm.backup.not-trad. (Note that this is a
> - conffile so you may get prompts from dpkg about it in the future.)
(Oh, I hadn't noticed; "I, debconf, will edit" is even more taboo
than "I, the developer", because users should never need to notice
debconf as a distinct entity in its own right anyway - stagehands
aren't meant to deliver monologues.)
> + If you choose this option, /etc/X11/app-default/XTerm will be modified
^s
> + and the old file will be kept as XTerm.backup.not-trad. As this file is a
> + configuration file, you may get prompts from dpkg about it in the future.
It's "app-defaults", 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.
> .
> To revert the change, simply change the key "*VT100.utf8Fonts.font"
> back from "-trad-..." to "-misc-...", or rename the old file back
>
> 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.
Leaving out the article makes it a bit abbreviated and headlinese
(which is legal in Descriptions); it's also possible that
"traditional" is being used more or less as a name rather than a
plain adjective. Leaving it out saves us having to decide whether
to use definite or indefinite, so I'm with Ian on this one.
Normally at this point I'd go on to nitpick the package description
in the direction of the d-l-e house style, but it's good clear
native-speaker English, so forget it!
(Oh, but... am I misunderstanding or is the control file missing a
"Recommends: xterm" to provide /etc/X11/app-defaults/XTerm?)
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: