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

Re: please indicate where messages in debconf dialogue are worth a bug reportx

MarkusHiereth wrote:
>> > "Failure to do this may result in deferred or bounced mail after the "
>> > "upgrade.  Accept this option to set smtpd_relay_restrictions equal to "
>> > "smtpd_recipient_restrictions."
>> >
>> > Presumably, mails in general are affected. Thus the plural "mails"
>> > would be correct:
>> >    s/mail/mails
>> No, "mail" is usually a mass noun [...]
> What is your suggestion?
> a) Replacing "mail" with "e-mails"
> b) Replacing "mail" with "some e-mails"
> c) Replacing "mail" with "e-mails" and "some e-mails" according to lenght of the phrace, treating both as equivalent.
> d) Changing nothing, as "mail" is correct.

In the above case, (d).  Other contexts might perhaps justify saying
"(some) emails" (I recommend dropping the hyphen).

>> > "Failure to fix this will result in a broken mailer. Decline this option to "
>> > "abort the upgrade, giving you the opportunity to add this configuration "
>> > "yourself. Accept this option to automatically make master.cf compatible with "
>> > "Postfix 2.4 in this respect."
>> >
>> > s/to add this configuration yourself/to add this configuration item yourself
>> I'd have to check the context.  Is this a simple addition?  If not,
>> keep it more like the previous one mentioned - "to configure this
>> yourself".
> The background information in another string is:
>   "Postfix version 2.4 requires that the retry service be added to master.cf."
> Therefore, I assume that the word "retry" is expected to appear in
> master.cf now.

Okay, so that phrasing does sound like an improvement.

>> > msgid "Update master.cf for merged lmtp/smtp binary?"
>> >
>> > Alternative:
>> >
>> > Update master.cf for newer postfix versions which are able of conveying
>> > mails in accordance with both protocols?
>> s/able/capable/, or preferably s/are able of conveying/can convey/...
>> or indeed change it to just something like "newer postfix versions
>> that support both protocols".
>> Is this a synopsis line or long description?  Has it already been made
>> clear what protocols it's talking about?
> Yes.

If it's a synopsis, we don't want to turn it into a long sentence.
(If only I had access to my PC I'd be able to find the answer to these
questions in less time than it takes to ask them...)

Reply to: