Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:43:45PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
> > trying to say", what do you think you're trying to say?
>
> I'm trying to say that I think it's *too* ambiguous. Where do you
> draw the line between what is "by hand" and what isn't?
In that fragment of policy, "by hand" is used in direct opposition to
"using debconf" etc. So my interpretation is that "by hand" is just
there to fill out the sentence: one could rewrite it the other way round
as "Prompting may be accomplished by communicating with a program, such
as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration management
specification, version 2 or higher, or otherwise", except that the "by
hand" emphasis makes the first part sound less appealing and so (with
any luck) encourages people to use debconf instead.
> Can you give me an example of "not by hand"?
Not using debconf. That's all that sentence means as I read it: the
phrase is just there for emphasis.
> (Especially if running X apps counts as "by hand", which I would have
> definitely classified as not-by-hand.)
Actually, I'd say that it does, provided that you're running the X
application yourself [1] rather than having debconf pop up something
like a Gtk frontend.
[1] You know, if I was writing this sentence in any other context I'd
say "running the X application by hand". :-)
> > (See how annoying it is to apply that approach to everything?
>
> No, actually, I think that was an excellent question; the problem is
> obviously not that I don't understand, it's that the extreme ambiguity
> makes me uncomfortable. Thanks for helping to clarify that.
Sorry for being abrasive. :/ I'm travelling and it's been a long week.
> > I'm kinda getting fed up of policy not being plain English any more
> > because everyone nitpicks at the tiniest little piece of ordinary
> > English idiom.)
>
> Now there I agree completely. I'd rather have ambiguity that obscure,
> unreadable legalese anyday. I was hoping that it was possible to find
> a *compromise* between *pure* ambiguity and insane precision, though.
> But maybe not.
I see Manoj has committed a clarifying footnote (which I haven't read
yet), so I guess this discussion is moot anyway apart from possibly
seeking agreement for the sake of harmony. :)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: