Re: package description rewording discussion
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:20:58PM +0200, Eric Maeker wrote:
> >
> > Hmmmm, are you talking about
> >
> > Description: Debian Med bioinformatics applications usable in cloud computing
> > This metapackage will install Debian packages related to molecular biology,
> > structural biology and bioinformatics for use in life sciences, that do not
> > depend on graphical toolkits and therefore can fit on system images for use
> > in cloud computing clusters, where space can be limited.
> >
> > I can not see in how far this qualifies for tooooooo long, sorry. On
> > the contrary - we do have some other descriptions which are 't shrt'.
>
> Ah ahaha I love 't shrt' :D
;-)
> I was tired and didn't explain my thoughts clearly. The description is
> comprehensible and perfectly clear but long sentences are more
> difficult to translate than small ones. I'd prefer to translate long
> paragraphs with small sentences. Second remark, using smaller sentence
> can improve the readability of the description (even if you have to
> repeat some words). That's why I wrote 'tooooooo long' I was thinking:
> "the sentence could be divided into three or four sentences to make
> translation easier and to improve readability".
OK. You are right in principle but I for myself would not use the
example above for an overlongish sentence (perhaps based on my German
mother language this one is perfectly fine). I'm OK with any
suggestions (preferably from native speakers) but I do not immediately
see any potential for enhancement. On the other hand I do not see any
reason why not splitting it up into more than one sentence in the target
language. Translations are revised anyway - so just give it a try and
others from translation team might fix (or come up with a better English
wording - I think you can leave a comment in DDTP saying things like
this).
> bis:
> This meta-package will install free drug database and related
> applications. The
> free drug database can be accessed by any EMR using the application.
>
> Is that useful ?
Yes. After rereading I've got your point and changed in SVN.
> All drug database are built using 100% DFSG raw source data.
This is redundant because everything in Debian needs to be 100% DFSG
free.
> I don' clearly understand the exact meaning of this sentence:
> It is supported by the GNUmed Electronic Medical Record package.
> while this package is suppoted by the Debian Med packaging team.
> Do you mean:
> GNUmed Electronic Medical Record package takes advantage of thisp
> package (or something like this)?
>
> Karsten any help?
It's simply outdated since we have more than one EMR. It is a good
thing if more than one person are looking at the text. Thanks for the
enhancement.
> > ddtp.debian.org
>
> Yes I know, but I was talking about the tasks not the packages.
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/blends/projects/med/trunk/debian-med/tasks/
That's the same. You need to translate the package descriptions of
med-bio
med-practice
med-data
...
However, after the text of med-data now has changed you should probably
wait until a new set of metapackages is uploaded (in the next couple of
weeks. The text on the tasks pages is taken from the package
descriptions if there is such a package (which is not always the case).
Kind regards and thanks for your review
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: