[Pkg-opt-media-team] [PATCH 01/07] Fixes for some typos

[Rogério Brito]

Hi, Monty.

First of all, thank you very much for the review of the patches. I really
appreciate your feedback, so that we can have better patches in Debian.

(I just don't want to have half-assed programs---and I would prefer them to be
as faithful to the upstream versions as possible).

On 12/14/2009 07:18 PM, Monty Montgomery wrote:
> Removing the application version from the manpage: I assume there's a
> policy behind that?  Personally I find it very useful to know what
> version of an application matches a manpage as my manpages typically
> update with every release.   Also, as someone who typically has more
> than one version installed....

I agree with you. That was a patch that a contributor sent and that was
incorporated by a previous maintainer. I just picked up the maintainance of the
program together with Takaki, but I take all the resposibility for not providing
you with a patch as good as I would like to present you.

> "Is anal-retentive hyphenated?"  Usage consistency is good, but many
> of these changes are swapping one accepted usage for another, akin to
> a patch that replaces all occurences or 'gray' with 'grey'.

I am not sure if the original contributor is a native English speaker, but I
agree about the consistency aspect of your criticism.

> Some are incorrect.  The changes are rather inconsistent (why is 'LSB-first'
> hyphenated but 'little endian' not? Oh wait, it is... later on...
> gah!) I'm happy to take the ones that work.

Thank you very much.

> Many of the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation chages are good.
> However many comma changes are incorrect/inconsistent:
> 
> -or raw format.  Most ATAPI, SCSI and several proprietary CDROM drive
> +or raw format.  Most ATAPI and SCSI and several proprietary CDROM drive

I just kept the contribution of this one, but I prefer the former, for a
stylistic way of writing. Sorry to send you that one.

> and
> 
> -.BR \-w ", " \-a ", " \-r " or " \-R " is used (" \-w
> +.BR \-w ", " \-a ", " \-r " or, " \-R " is used (" \-w
> 
> ^^^ in each case the second is simply incorrect English and there are
> quite a few other examples.  The first is only potentially wrong due
> to inconsistent usage (the decision whether or not to preceed 'and' or
> 'or' with a  comma in a homogenous list of three or more items).

Yes, I am aware of the "dilemma" of using a comma before an "and" in English.

> There are other places where the patch makes the change correctly.

Those are probably A. Costa's contributions.

> Also, why are some options broken out to bolding:
> 
> -number of retries can be specified; for comparison, default without -z is
> +number of retries can be specified; for comparison, default without
> +.B -z
> +is
> 
> but most still aren't:
> 
> -data verification and correction features.  When using -Z, cdparanoia
> -reads data exactly as would cdda2wav with an overlap setting of zero.
> +data verification and correction features.  When using -Z,
> +.B cdparanoia
> +reads data exactly as would
> +.BR cdda2wav (1)
> +with an overlap setting of zero.
> 
> ?

This one I can't answer. I usually maintain the manpages with Perl's POD, as I
can barely read *roff. I would guess that the contributor has just overlooked
some (my guess only).

> That said, it caught a bunch of real mistakes, so I'm applying the good bits.

Very good. I think that ispell should be thanked for that. :-)


Thanks,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br