Bug#555977: debian-policy: Constraints on binary package control files
Hi!
Here's a review from a non-native speaker.
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 17:40:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..3d5334d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -804,6 +804,35 @@
> in the <tt>.deb</tt> file format.
> </p>
>
> + <p>
> + A <tt>.deb</tt> package contains two sets of files: a set of files
> + to installed on the system when the package is installed, and a
/files to install/, instead of /files to be installed/ given that
there's an “installed” later on?
> + set of files that provide additional metadata about the package or
> + which are executed when the package is installed or removed. This
> + second set of files is called <em>control information files</em>.
> + Among those files are the package maintainer scripts
> + and <file>control</file>, the <qref id="binarycontrolfiles">binary
> + package control file</qref> that contains the control fields for
> + the package. Other control information files
> + include <qref id="sharedlibs-shlibdeps">the <file>shlibs</file>
> + file</qref> used to store shared library dependency information
> + and the <file>conffiles</file> file that lists the package's
> + configuration files (described in <ref id="config-files">).
> + </p>
> +
> + <p>
> + There is an unfortunately collision of terminology here between
/There is an unfortunate collision/ or /There is unfortunately a
collision/?
> + control information files and files in the Debian control file
> + format. Throughout this document, a <em>control file</em> refers
> + to a file in the Debian control file format. These files are
> + documented in <ref id="controlfields">. Only files referred to
> + specifically as <em>control information files</em> are the files
> + included in the control information file member of
> + the <file>.deb</file> file format used by binary packages. Most
> + control information files are not in the Debian control file
> + format.
> + </p>
The rest looked good to me.
regards,
guillem
Reply to: