Hi,
Thanks David for your patches.
Please apply your patch after minor change I requested below.
My lesson ... never write a response on very hot issue while I am not in
better shape. If I was too harsh, excuse me. (Besides, I had too much
typos.)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:46:22PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> [Forgot to attach my diff in the previous message, sorry for the noise.]
> [Following the thread in order to keep this talk in the archives.]
> >> @@ -2085,7 +2089,7 @@
> >>
> >> <p>If you don't need these, remove them.
> >>
> >> - <sect id="examples"><file><var>package</var>.examples</file> file
> >> + <sect id="examples"><file><var>package</var>.examples</file> files
> >
> > This ends with s but this could be a file.
>
> Sure, I just wanted to provide a consistent title with package.info and
> package.manpages, adjusted on the other way in the current patch.
I see your point. Your new proposal is better patch, I think.
> >> - <file>etc/default/<var>package</var></file>. This file
> >> + <file>/etc/default/<var>package</var></file>. This file
> >
> > Thanks but this is intentional. This is under ./debian .
>
> Sure, thus correcting <file>etc/init.d/<var>package</var></file> on the
> previous paragraph, included in the current patch (hope this is correct).
I must have been sleepy ... I take back my words and take your older fix
over this one. Sorry.
> >> <sect id="manpage"><file>manpage.*</file> files
> >>
> >> - <p>Your program(s) should have a manual page. If they don't, you must
> >> create
> >> + <p>Your program(s) should have a manual page. If they don't, you should
> >> create
> >
> > These uses of "shoud" and "must" are my intentional choice as tutorial.
>
> As you wish, but a manpage is not (and can't be) a "must", since some
> programs are not intended to be shell executable: some CMS like phpbb3
> have no use of a manpage, even if some documentation is shipped in the
> package under another form, and the same remark is applicable to the
> package main-guide... (It's kept in the current patch, but I won't
> upload it if you are not agree, of course).
At policy: 12.1 Manual pages
You should install manual pages in nroff source form, in appropriate
places under /usr/share/man.
You are right. I take your patch on this.
> >> - <p>For <ref id="first">, we created 3 patches in
> >> <file>debian/patches</file>.
> >> + <p>For <ref id="modify">, we created 3 patches in
> >> <file>debian/patches</file>.
> >
> > Why? (I am tired good night. )
>
> The three patches are created in chapter 3 "Modifying the source"
> (id="modify"), not in chapter 2 "First steps" (id="first").
I take your patch.
> The last diff of the current patch contains, in top of the nip ticking
> "debianize" change a s/it/them/ at the end of the line (because I assume
> we are talking about the added files, not directory to be edited).
I like newer wording and this is aligned with recent policy wording
change. Until now, I did not know this.
> I also included a patch to remove jargon neologism "debianize" as it
> should be done next week in the Policy, cf. #586163 (I intend to propose
> to do the same for the developers-reference).
I see your point and agree.
> Is it OK with you if I try and fix s/section/area/ to conform with
> Policy (and DFSG) about what {main|contrib|non-free} are (I intend to
> propose to do the same for the developers-reference) ?
Let me mention on the "section" thing. This has long history of debate
and confusion. DSFG, Policy, DevRef, APT documentation ... This has
been highly charged issue which goes back to days when DSFG was created.
Please be careful wording proposal in good tone.
I think I kept wording as it was in maint-guide.
I think we change this for *consistncy* with foundation document.
Let's do this.
FYI: I explain it in debian-reference as:
In the stricter Debian archive terminology, the word "section" is
specifically used for the categorization of packages by the application
area. (Although, the word "main section" may sometimes be used to
describe the Debian archive section which provides the main component.)
As I read SC and DSFG again, the word usage should be "non-free archive
*area* contains non-free *components*." I think I need to redo
debian-reference as:
In the stricter Debian archive terminology, the word "section" is
specifically used for the categorization of packages by the application
area. (Although, the word "main section" may sometimes be used to
describe the Debian archive area which provides main components.)
(Only the following part of patch is not good as I explained above.)
> @@ -2095,7 +2095,7 @@
> you've obviously disregarded my initial recommendation, haven't you? :-)
>
> <p>The <file><var>package</var>.init</file> file is installed as the
> - <file>/etc/init.d/<var>package</var></file> script. Its fairly generic
> + <file>etc/init.d/<var>package</var></file> script. Its fairly generic
> skeleton template is provided by the <prgn>dh_make</prgn> command as
> <file>init.d.ex</file>. You'll likely have to rename and edit it, a lot,
> while making sure to provide Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
> @@ -2156,7 +2156,7 @@
> <file>debian/tmp</file> for files, if it doesn't find them in the current
> directory (or wherever you've told it to look using <tt>--sourcedir</tt>).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
