Re: Debian package descriptions for GNOME introspection
Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote:
> I have a problem understanding the descriptions for GNOME introspection (1), (2)
> packages. As their purpose is identical, the descriptions share almost identical
> paragraphs. I've copied three examples from my todo list.
>
>
>> gir1.2-gtop-2.0
>>
>> This package can be used by other packages using the GIRepository format to
>> generate dynamic bindings.
>>
>> gir1.2-gtkclutter-1.0
>>
>> It can be used by packages using the GIRepository format to generate
>> dynamic bindings.
>>
>> gir1.2-notify-0.7
>>
>> This package can be used by other packages using the GIRepository format to
>> generate dynamic bindings.
>
> The phrase "using the GIRepository format" for some reason confuses me. Is this
> good English and I missed something at school?
As far as I can tell these are just special GTK+3 -dev packages that
are too cool for "Section: devel" and get to form their own private
club in the new "Section: introspection". Apparently a GIR is a
GObject introspection repository, and not *just* an Invader Zim
reference; the clearest explanation I'd seen was in the description
for libgirepository1.0-doc:
> GObject Introspection is a project for providing machine readable
> introspection data of the API of C libraries. This introspection
> data can be used in several different use cases, for example
> automatic code generation for bindings, API verification and
> documentation generation.
> [...]
Given that this is too much to copy into every package description in
the section, while still being a bit short to function as a real
explanation for non-programmers of what it is they don't need to know,
I'm a bit stumped. Probably it would make more sense to have some
sort of absolutely basic explanation in the introspection section
description (at present it has no description at all) and to point at
something more detailed in the Wheezy Release Notes.
> A wording like "It/This package can be used to generate dynamic bindings." I consider
> to be easier to comprehend. But the question "Why do I want a dynamic binding?" would
> remain.
I don't even understand this well enough to know whether that's a good
summary.
I do rather dislike the phrase "GIRepository format" (couldn't it be
either "GObject Introspection Repository format" or "GIR format"?),
but it's quite possible that people interested in these packages all
disagree with me...
--
JBR For trifling occasions it is better to accomplish things
simply by yelling - "Hagakure", Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1716)
Reply to: