X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?p=developers-reference.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=developers-reference.sgml;h=3b1206feb930bff99b49e0076307e098b909c228;hp=811fa695da45e70708ecabbd49bc9dffc2009b22;hb=af4a79e2cde3500ee7977db96bf127159508ddab;hpb=0c552242fa027c6682a6aca8314e422570bea0c8 diff --git a/developers-reference.sgml b/developers-reference.sgml index 811fa69..3b1206f 100644 --- a/developers-reference.sgml +++ b/developers-reference.sgml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ %commondata; - + - Miscellaenous advice + Miscellaneous advice Writing useful descriptions

The description of the package (as defined by the corresponding field in the control file) is usually the first information -available to the user before he installs it. As such, it should +available to the user before they install it. As such, it should provide all the required information to let him decide whether to install the package.

For example, apart from the usual description that you adapt from the upstream README, you should include the URL of the -website if there's any. If the package is not yet considered stable +web site if there's any. If the package is not yet considered stable by the author, you may also want to warn the user that the package is not ready for production use.

+For consistency and for an aesthetic concern, you should capitalize the +first letter of the description. +

Last but not least, since the first user impression is based on -that description, you should be careful to avoid english +that description, you should be careful to avoid English mistakes. Ensure that you spell check it. -ispell has a special option (-g) for that : -ispell -d american -g debian/control +ispell has a special option (-g) for that: +ispell -d american -g debian/control. + @@ -2817,7 +2904,7 @@ out all the bugs you submitted, you just have to visit Reporting lots of bugs at once

Reporting a great number of bugs for the same problem on a great -number of different packages &mdash i.e., more than 10 &mdash is a deprecated +number of different packages — i.e., more than 10 — is a deprecated practice. Take all possible steps to avoid submitting bulk bugs at all. For instance, if checking for the problem can be automated, add a new check to lintian so that an error or warning @@ -2858,8 +2945,8 @@ If you do not get a reply after a few weeks you should collect all useful information about this maintainer. Start by logging into the and doing a full search to check whether the maintainer is on vacation -and when he was last seen. Collect any important package names -he maintains and any Release Critical bugs filled against them. +and when they were last seen. Collect any important package names +they maintain and any Release Critical bugs filed against them.

Send all this information to &email-debian-qa;, in order to let the QA people do whatever is needed. @@ -2879,7 +2966,7 @@ email the maintainer, whatever their individual email address (or addresses) may be. Replace <package> with the name of a source or a binary package.

-You may also be interested by contacting the persons who are +You may also be interested in contacting the persons who are subscribed to a given source package via . You can do so by using the <package-name>@&pts-host; email address. @@ -2907,7 +2994,7 @@ id="&url-sponsors;">. New maintainers usually have certain difficulties creating Debian packages — this is quite understandable. That is why the sponsor is there, to check the package and verify that it is good enough for inclusion in Debian. -(Note that if the sponsored package is new, the FTP admins will also have to +(Note that if the sponsored package is new, the ftpmasters will also have to inspect it before letting it in.)

Sponsoring merely by signing the upload or just recompiling is @@ -2930,9 +3017,9 @@ You can not simply upload a binary .deb from the sponsoree. In theory, you should only ask only for the diff file, and the location of the original source tarball, and then you should download the source and apply the diff yourself. In practice, you may want to use the source package -built by your sponsoree. In that case you have to check that he hasn't -altered the upstream files in the .orig.tar.gz file that he's -providing. +built by your sponsoree. In that case, you have to check that they haven't +altered the upstream files in the .orig.tar.gz file that +they're providing.

Do not be afraid to write the sponsoree back and point out changes that need to be made. It often takes several rounds of back-and-forth