Hello, On Fri 10 Apr 2020 at 10:45PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 17:18:27 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> On Wed 08 Apr 2020 at 01:18AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: >> >> +The copyright information for files in a package must be copied >> >> +verbatim into ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``, when >> > ^ Shouldn't this and other instances >> > of "package" be marked as replaceable text? >> >> Possibly, though that's an issue with the existing Policy text not this >> patch -- perhaps I should just find and replace after applying the patch >> from this bug? > > Ah right, thought this was specific to this drafting. Sounds good. Now done. >> > I'm assuming the entire list is supposed to hold at the same time? If >> > so perhaps adding an «and» here would make this completely unambiguous. >> >> Hmm, thanks for the feedback, but I don't think "a; b; and c" is >> ambiguous in English, and "a; and b; and c" would be an irregular usage. > > I guess what I found ambiguous is that "; and" in English does not > necessarily have a logic connotation. So one can read it as "item a; > item b; and item c" where the and is just there to introduce the next > item instead of specifying the content is ANDed. The “when” should > make it somewhat clear, but on a quick read it just made me doubt. > > Take the example list in ch-source.rst > “Main building script: ``debian/rules``”: > > ,--- > There are sometimes good reasons to use a different approach. For > example, the standard tools for packaging software written in some > languages may use another tool; some rarer packaging patterns, such as > multiple builds of the same software with different options, are easier to > express with other tools; and a packager working on a different packaging > helper might want to use their tool. > `--- > > Which I'd take it as an “and” for the list, not for its contents holding > true at the same time. :) > > With the context I guess it is somewhat clearish, but I'd really like > to see text that is completely unambiguous for stuff that is normative. > >> If this really does need clarification it would be better to add "all of >> the following" or something before the list. > > Yes, clarifying before the list starts would work too, and I thought I > mentioned it in my reply, but apparently not. Now done. Thanks again for the feedback. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature