1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 12/08/14 08:47 AM, hasufell wrote: |
5 |
> William Hubbs: |
6 |
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel RĂ¼ger wrote: |
7 |
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> *snip* |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>>> These links might be helpful: |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914 |
14 |
>>> |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976 |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786 |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>>> What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still |
23 |
>>> really want to enforce this). |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this |
26 |
>> a repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but |
27 |
>> there was a feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and |
28 |
>> shouldn't be worried about. |
29 |
>> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> That thread is pretty odd. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> First, a sentence does not need to have a predicate. I know that |
34 |
> for 99% sure in german and the english wikipedia article seems to |
35 |
> suggest the same. Correct me if I am wrong. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Second, there are valid descriptions that are full ordinary |
38 |
> sentences without referencing ${PN}: "Access a working SSH |
39 |
> implementation by means of a library". |
40 |
> |
41 |
> In addition, repoman doesn't check for full sentences that |
42 |
> reference ${PN}, such as: "Portage is the package management and |
43 |
> distribution system for Gentoo". |
44 |
> |
45 |
> So we have another (useless) repoman warning with false positives. |
46 |
> |
47 |
|
48 |
TL;DR -- is there any technical reason as to why a DESCRIPTION ending |
49 |
in '.' is bad? Other than the fact that it adds 3000 unnecessary |
50 |
bytes to the portage tree? IE, does it have the possibility of |
51 |
throwing off tools that strictly adhere to some random spec (although |
52 |
it doesn't seem like PMS declares anything bad about this either)?? |
53 |
|
54 |
Perhaps we need to have a less-important repoman warning level |
55 |
(something that can be quieted with a flag) for things like this? In |
56 |
terms of DESCRIPTION consistency I don't see it being a bad thing that |
57 |
we have the warning, but i also don't see a point in changing the |
58 |
entire tree to get rid of 3000 bytes, esp. since the ChangeLog entries |
59 |
added to the tree will add at least 30,000 bytes :) |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
66 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
67 |
|
68 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqHIYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCvXQD7BQYtciffNZDCM03vMSlNAgQh |
69 |
s4j3dw3tL9VDe/oiq7kA/25lVdaRqAc/mbdiI5surUOG9a0J+1sk/nrVft4ocnSs |
70 |
=8273 |
71 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |