Bug#601455: Full patch for this bug -- seeking seconds

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 27 2017, Russ Allbery wrote (to 601455@bugs.debian.org):

>> Tiny formatting nit: I usually prefer to put the double-colon at the
>> end of the previous paragraph when the literal text is introduced
>> explicitly by that package, instead of on a line by itself.

> Could you explain the difference this makes, please?  Drops an
> unnecessary newline?

It's mostly just personal preference, but I think:

    If the daemon should not be autostarted unless the local administrator
    has explicitly requested this, instead add to your ``postinst``
    script::

        update-rc.d package defaults-disabled

reads better in text form than:

    If the daemon should not be autostarted unless the local administrator
    has explicitly requested this, instead add to your ``postinst`` script

    ::

        update-rc.d package defaults-disabled

admittedly at the cost of making the markup less explicit.  It also means
that the paragraph ends in a colon, which I like as punctuation, by taking
advantage of this part of the specification:

    When text immediately precedes the "::", one colon will be removed
    from the output, leaving only one colon visible (i.e., "::" will be
    replaced by ":"; this is the "fully minimized" form).

I could be convinced that the more explicit markup is better, but for me
the indentation hints at literal block anyway (since I'm used to
Markdown), so I don't really need the additional hint.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>