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

Re: Package descriptions, short description, begin with uppercase or lowercase?

Laura Arjona Reina wrote:
> Dear l10n-english and i18n friends,
> Two of us (Spanish translators) noticed that some packages have their
> short description beginning with uppercase
> (https://packages.debian.org/jessie/magics++ ) and others with
> lowercase (e.g. https://packages.debian.org/jessie/libss2 ).
> 1.- Is there a canonical form? Which one?

The Debian Developer's Reference
says libss2 is right and magics++ is wrong.

> 2.- How to proceed with the packages that don't follow the rule? We
> would translate it following the rule, but how to report to the
> maintainer? Just file a bug?

It's only a very minor deviation from "best practice", so I wouldn't
file a bug report just for this.  Mind you, the package description
for magics++ does make me wonder about a couple of other things:

# Executables for the magics++ library
# Magics++ is the latest generation of the ECMWF's Meteorological
# plotting software MAGICS. Although completely redesigned in C++, it
# is intended to be as backwards-compatible as possible with the
# Fortran interface. Besides its programming interfaces (Fortran and
# C), Magics++ offers MagML, a plot description language based on XML
# aimed at automatic web production.
# This package contains the MagcML binary that may be used with
# magics++.

(Note that there's some more informative text in the description for

Some quibbles:
 * it should expand "ECMWF" to "European Centre for Medium-Range
   Weather Forecasts";
 * "Meteorological" isn't entitled to a capital "M";
 * "plot description" sounds like a job for movie reviewers, while
   "automated web production" sounds like one for robot spiders - does
   it mean "automated weather map production on the web"?
 * the use of "that" to introduce the last clause implies that it's a
   definitive relative clause, but I suspect that's wrong - it ought
   to be a descriptive relative clause, introducing a binary *which*
   can be used with magics++;
 * is "MagcML binary" a typo for "MagcML"?
 * what "binary" is it talking about?   The package's file list says
   it contains not one but three binaries (magjson, magmlx, and
   mapgen_clip) - compare the plural "executables" promised by the
 * what exactly would we be using this binary or binaries to do?
 * why is the final reference to Magics++ uncapitalised?

These just about add up to something I might manage to submit a
wishlist bug report about, but I'd need to do some more research
before I could suggest a patch...
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

Reply to: