Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:54:31
Message-Id: 53EA1C86.6070800@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings by hasufell
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-----

Replies