On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 14:00 +0100, Justin B Rye wrote: > Christian PERRIER wrote: > [...] > > + If you do not agree, the installation will be cancelled. > [...] > > + The installation of this package has been cancelled. > > > > Few changes. Only a spelling fix. > > Sorry, Christian, this is a (particularly fiddly) en_GB-versus-en_US > spelling rule difference. > > Should I revise the package descriptions? Most of the synopses have > unnecessary capitalistation, and there are lots of lists that could > accommodate extra commas, but before I start I'm wondering about those > huge verbatim lines. Why do we repeat brandnames like "Broadcom > NetXtremeII" so many times when once would be enough to make the > package show up in an "apt-cache search"? [...] > It seems to me we could abbreviate (or omit) "firmware" and "version" > in most of these, and reduce the brandnames to section-headers along > the lines of: > > Broadcom NetXtremeII firmware for Linux 2.6.32: > * 5706/5708 mips (bnx2/bnx2-mips-06-5.0.0.j3.fw) > * 5706/5708 rv2p (bnx2/bnx2-rv2p-06-5.0.0.j3.fw) > * 5709/5716 mips (bnx2/bnx2-mips-09-5.0.0.j3.fw) > * 5709/5716 rv2p (bnx2/bnx2-rv2p-09-5.0.0.j3.fw) > * 5709 A0/A1 rv2p (bnx2/bnx2-rv2p-09ax-5.0.0.j3.fw) > > Is there some good reason for not doing this (e.g. because the lists > are generated automatically somehow)?
They're generated from the descriptions of each package and each file in */defines. They can probably be abbreviated somewhat as the description strings are not used anywhere else. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
