Re: [PATCHES] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.

Andreas Enge (2015-07-19 00:13 +0300) wrote: > Coming late, I have not followed the full discussion closely, so my remark > may be out of tune. Not too late; the final decision on lists formatting has not been made yet. The last related post is Ludo's "Texinfo in descriptions?":

Re: [PATCHES] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.

Coming late, I have not followed the full discussion closely, so my remark may be out of tune. I think our descriptions should be formatted as simply as possible: just plain ascii text, which would work in any locale (or if you insist, maybe utf8). So far, I simply avoided lists in package descrip

Re: [PATCHES] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.

Ludovic Courtès (2015-07-18 00:30 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: > >> So I'm attaching 2 patches: for lines with leading parenthesis and for >> fixing multiple "typos" (in a general meaning). Changing >> synopses/descriptions according to "guix lint" (so no problems with >> 'gnu-description'

Re: [PATCHES] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.

Alex Kost skribis: > So I'm attaching 2 patches: for lines with leading parenthesis and for > fixing multiple "typos" (in a general meaning). Changing > synopses/descriptions according to "guix lint" (so no problems with > 'gnu-description') and reorganizing lists are not included. OK. These t

Re: [PATCHES] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.

Alex Kost writes: > So I'm attaching 2 patches: for lines with leading parenthesis and for > fixing multiple "typos" (in a general meaning). Changing > synopses/descriptions according to "guix lint" (so no problems with > 'gnu-description') and reorganizing lists are not included. These 2 patch

[PATCHES] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions.

Ludovic Courtès (2015-07-16 18:50 +0300) wrote: > Mathieu Lirzin skribis: > >> For the typos and polishing fixes, I would prefer that the commits were >> done in a module related way. So IMO It would be better to have one >> commit per-file. > > I think one per file would be overkill (and not rea