Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:43:36 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >> +This command
> >> +allows the ``debian/rules`` target to run particular subcommands under
> >
> > ^^^^^^ lintian will tell you this should be "enables"
>
> As a native speaker I find 'allows' more natural than 'enables'.
> 'Allows' is certainly not grammatically incorrect. Can you point me to
> the Lintian tag?
(I am a native en_GB speaker)
I agree that the quoted diff was correct English.
Lintian's rather simplistic spelling and grammar checker complains
about the formulation "this utility *allows to* reticulate splines"
(my emphasis), which is a fairly common bit of en_DE. I assume it's
a literal translation of something that's correct in German?
That isn't correct English: it doesn't say who or what is given
the ability to reticulate splines. The Lintian spellchecker suggests
"this utility *allows one to* reticulate splines", which is correct and
general but maybe overly formal. "This utility allows a user to reticulate
splines", "this utility allows game developers to reticulate splines" or
"this utility allows simulation game engines to reticulate splines"[1]
would also be correct, but Lintian's spellchecker doesn't have enough
context to know who/what.
In this case, the sentence correctly says who/what is given the ability
to run subcommands: the ``debian/rules`` target.
> >> +The
> >> +`gain root command` must not rely on shell features because it need
> >> +not be used via a shell.
> >
> > I am not a native speaker, but isn't "doesn't need to" more natural?
> > Otherwise it should be "needs" I guess.
>
> s/need/needs/ would not be grammatically correct.
>
> I am a native speaker and I find the "need not" more idiomatic than
> "doesn't need to", but I have to admit that I do not know why :)
>
> Here is a possible explanation, but please do not rely on this in the
> future unless some other native speakers are able to confirm it:
>
> "The gain root command ... because it need not be used via a shell"
> <-- it /can/ be used without a shell and /might/ be used without a shell,
> /therefore/ it should not rely on shell features.
>
> "The gain root command ... because it doesn't need to be used via a
> shell" <-- it /can/ be used without a shell,
> /therefore/ it should not rely on shell features.
>
> i.e. the 'need not' carries the additional connotation that it might
> /actually/ be used without a shell, which is the reason for not relying
> on shell features.
This all seems valid to me, but it's relatively subtle. Perhaps you could
clarify this sentence by saying "The gain root command must (blah blah)
because it will not necessarily be used by a shell"? I think that's
maybe easier to understand?
smcv
[1] http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Reticulating_splines
Reply to: