[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request for Review: APT manpages



On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
> apt-extracttemplates.1.xml is trivial; the only thing I'd suggest for
> it is
>
>  <refnamediv>
>     <refname>apt-extracttemplates</refname>
> -    <refpurpose>Utility to extract DebConf config and templates from Debian packages</refpurpose>
> +    <refpurpose>Utility to extract debconf config and templates from Debian packages</refpurpose>
>  </refnamediv>
>
> (DebConf is the annual event, debconf is the executable.)

I additionally wrapped <command> around it, just to be sure.
I would have accepted Debconf as used by [0], too, but
the description of debconf-i18n uses "debconf templates".

[0] http://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po-debconf/


> So I'll go straight on into apt-ftparchive.1.xml.  The above was too
> simple to need a patch; the following isn't ready for one yet.

I took all typo/simple grammar/style fixes and applied them.
(and unfuzzied them so no work for translators here)

For the rewordings and word-clashes i am happy you found them,
but rewriting the manpage to make it consistent is properly impossible
to do before wheezy. After a finial release of the repository format
documentation (in the policy) we have to rework (at least) apt-ftparchive,
sources.list and apt_preferences as they all "document" certain parts
of the repository with as you showed sometimes even conflicting meanings
of a word in a single sentence, so as wrong as this might sound, i think
we should ship this in it's current form and improve it for wheezy+1.


I will "instruct" translators accordingly, as i do for the *.sgml files - and
just took the liberty to reorder the pot a bit. There is no real reason for
apt-get strings being behind apt-ftparchive either way.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

P.S.: In that rework, i will maybe also figure out what the use of this
--delink option is. I suspect it's for big archives to avoid generating
too big updates which would overload mirror-syncing, but i am not sure…


Reply to: