Re: debian/control description for ruby-dotenv
Disclaimer: I have no idea what .env or ENV or procfiles are, and it's
possible that Ruby gem packagers already have some established
conventions for writing descriptions that you could just follow.
tornow@riseup.net wrote:
> i got problems with the description for the ruby gem dotenv in the
> debian/control file.
>
> After some reading i put it together like this:
>
> Description: Make application configuration variables available in ENV
The Debian Reference recommends making the synopsis an uncapitalised
noun phrase (something that would fit after "this package provides
a..."). This approach helps users work out what general kind of thing
it is when they randomly bump into it in the package pools - a daemon,
a GUI app, a library...?
In this case the answer is basically that this package provides a Ruby
library, but that fact should be obvious from the Debian package name,
so you don't need to repeat it. It might make sense for the synopsis
to say something like:
Description: gem making application configuration variables available in ENV
Or on the other hand, since this is getting a bit long, you might want
to trim it right down to
Description: configuration variable loader
> Like the gem foreman dotenv will automagically load variables from .env
> but doesn't put them in the Procfile. They are accessible by ENV instead.
> By that it can also be used when running the application manually, using a
> console or running a rake task.
Fixing some unidiomatic turns of phrase:
Like the gem "foreman", dotenv will automagically load variables from .env,
but doesn't put them in the Procfile. Instead they are accessible via ENV.
Thus it can also be used when running an application manually, using the
interactive console, or running a Rake task.
(But how would I use an application other than "manually"? Does it
mean "running an application on the command line", or what?)
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: