Re: Review of debputy editor provided docs for packagers

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

Justin B Rye:
> Niels Thykier wrote:
> > I suppose there would be no harm in having a paragraph explaining when to
> > use which.  Here is my draft for how to include it (full hover doc). It also
> > includes an example with the component case as suggested by Justin below:
> > [...]
>
> So from the top:
> 		Lists files that should be removed from the tarball when repacking (commonly via `uscan`). This
> 		can be useful when the listed files are non-free but not necessary for the Debian package. In this
> 		case, the upstream version of the package should generally end with `~dfsg` or `+dfsg` (to mark the
> 		content as changed due to the Debian Free Software Guidelines). The exclusion can also be useful to
> 		remove pre-built binaries, or large files or directories that are not used by Debian. In this case,
> 		instead of `~dfsg` or `+dfsg`, `~ds` or `+ds` for "Debian Source" should be added to the version
> 		to mark it as altered by Debian. If both reasons apply, the `~dfsg` or `+dfsg` version is used as
> 		that is the more important reason for the repacking.

Thanks. :)

> > > > > > #. [Synopsis] One-line description for the value "skippable" [Plaintext].
> > > > > > #. Shown with completion (etc.)
> > > > > > #: src/debputy/lsp/data/debian_tests_control_reference_data.yaml
> > > > > > msgctxt "Stanza:Tests|Field:Restrictions"
> > > > > > msgid "Test may at runtime decide to be marked as skipped"
> > > >
> > > > "marked as"?? seems unneccessary
> > >
> > > A "skippable" test is apparently one that can decide at runtime
> > > whether it's in a position to work as a test or not (maybe it never
> > > works on the sabbath); if not, it declares that it doesn't count as
> > > having been tried - that is, it's marked down as skipped.
> > >
> > > Is there a short way of conveying that?
> >
> > Perhaps, "Test may at runtime decide to be skipped"?
>
> That seems less pedantically accurate than the version where it
> declares that it's "marked as" skipped, given that it is already
> running (and therefore hasn't *literally* been skipped) when it
> decides that.  We might I suppose say:
>
> 	msgid "Test may at runtime decide it should count as skipped"
>
> I was hoping I'd find a way of doing it with some fancy synonym like
> "abstain", but I doubt there's anything that would make it clearer.

Thanks as well.

Both changes have been applied. :)

I see my follow up on Multi-Arch has gotten lost. I will try to resend 
it soon.

Best regards,
Niels

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature