Debian Bug report logs - #646992
Package description unclear

version graph

Package: libxpm4; Maintainer for libxpm4 is Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>; Source for libxpm4 is src:libxpm.

Reported by: Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 05:30:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Found in version libxpm/1:3.5.9-3

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org, Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#646992; Package libxpm4. (Sat, 29 Oct 2011 05:30:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org, Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>. (Sat, 29 Oct 2011 05:30:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Package description unclear
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:24:50 +0200
Package: libxpm4
Version: 1:3.5.9-3
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org

Dear X Maintainers,
thank you for maintaining this big, fat and complicated software.

Updating the German package description I found that the first sentence
of the description might be simplified or rephrased.

What does "provides support and common operation" mean? If the library
supports the format, I expect it to provide all necessary functionality
to work with the format. Providing the ability to perform operations
that are needed very often one could describe as "the ability to perform
common operations". From this point of view in "support *and* common
 operations" and is wrong as common operations are a subset of full 
support:
"and common operations" is superfluous. If the support is limited, I would
like to know the limitations or an enumeration of the capabilities.

So I would start the description with something like
 - This library provides support for the XPM image format, ...
 - This library supports the XPM image format, ...
 - This library enables your applications to handle the XPM image 
format, ...

Kind regards,
   Martin




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#646992; Package libxpm4. (Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:00:21 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>. (Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:00:24 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 646992@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk>
To: 646992@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: Bug#646992: Package description unclear
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:58:51 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote:
> Updating the German package description I found that the first sentence
> of the description might be simplified or rephrased.

Yes, it needs something; "provides [...] common operation" is
ungrammatical.

> What does "provides support and common operation" mean? If the library
> supports the format, I expect it to provide all necessary functionality
> to work with the format. Providing the ability to perform operations
> that are needed very often one could describe as "the ability to perform
> common operations". From this point of view in "support *and* common
>  operations" and is wrong as common operations are a subset of full
> support:
> "and common operations" is superfluous. If the support is limited, I would
> like to know the limitations or an enumeration of the capabilities.
> 
> So I would start the description with something like
>  - This library provides support for the XPM image format, ...
>  - This library supports the XPM image format, ...
>  - This library enables your applications to handle the XPM image
> format, ...

I'd go for that first one.  Or maybe the paragraph should just be
about XPM format, so it can serve as boilerplate for the other
packages in the set too, and the part specific to libxpm4 should just
say "This package provides runtime support for XPM format". 

Looking at the whole description:
# Description: X11 pixmap library
# libXpm provides support and common operation for the XPM pixmap format, which
# is commonly used in legacy X applications.  XPM is an extension of the
# monochrome XBM bitmap specificied in the X protocol.
# .
# More information about X.Org can be found at:
# <URL:http://www.X.org>
# .
# This module can be found at
# git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/lib/libXpm

Paragraphs two and three of that look redundant now that there are
Homepage and Vcs-* fields.

Is it really correct for applications that use XPM format to be
described as "legacy"?  XPM is my all-time favourite format for custom
desktop icons (since you can create them in a text editor), and I've
never seen any deprecation announcements.  So maybe we can just say
"traditional" X applications...

Suggested patch attached.
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
[patch.jbr (text/plain, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#646992; Package libxpm4. (Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:34:23 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>. (Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:34:29 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 646992@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk>
To: 646992@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>, debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#646992: Package description unclear
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:30:00 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Justin B Rye wrote:
> Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote:
>> Updating the German package description I found that the first sentence
>> of the description might be simplified or rephrased.

Oops, my first try at this
("http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=646992#10") didn't
(a) CC d-l-e or (b) mention that XPM is an image format.  Second try.

-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
[patch.jbr2 (text/plain, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#646992; Package libxpm4. (Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:33:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>. (Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:33:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 646992@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
To: Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk>, 646992@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de>, debian-x@lists.debian.org
Subject: Should we rethink the homepage/module pointers in long descriptions? (Was: Bug#646992)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:29:07 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> (29/10/2011):
> Paragraphs two and three of that look redundant now that there are
> Homepage and Vcs-* fields.

That's the usual deal with X-related stuff. I guess we could batch the
removal of the X.org pointer (pointing through Homepage if deemed
appropriate). The module isn't exactly redundant, since the upstream
module is hosted on freedesktop.org, and might be known there under a
different name than the one we have for its packaging in Debian
(mentioned in Vcs-*). But then, I have added a pointer to the upstream
git repositories in all debian/watch files, so it could just go away.

So maybe just Homepage: http://www.x.org/ should be sufficient for all
packages? What do other think?


That said, Justin and Martin, many thanks for the bug and the patch. I
won't be able to review those today, though, sorry.

Mraw,
KiBi.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sun Apr 20 14:06:39 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.