From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] gnu: Some cleanup based on lint checkers. Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:05:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20141024160537.GA11876@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> References: <87tx2uxcxk.fsf@member.fsf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36168) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhhN9-0005GG-RS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:05:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhhN2-0000YK-CZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:05:51 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:57469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhhN1-0000Xr-OU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:05:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87tx2uxcxk.fsf@member.fsf.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:19:03AM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote: > 2. Many descriptions begin with the package name in lowercase form, > which triggers a warning about the description beginning with a > lowercase letter. In this patch I capitalised the package name if I > could find a reference to the capital form on the package's home-page > somewhere. Many packages are quite insistent that the package always be > referenced by the lowercase name, and I'm not sure how the description > would be reworded, or whether it really needs to be. We could add an > exception to the description-starts-with-a-capital-letter rule for when > the package name is the first word. Personally I would capitalise; we are not bound by upstream wishes to use incorrect language. > 5. I didn't really want to begin looking at the synopses and > descriptions in xorg.scm... Actually, I filled most of them with a fixed synopsis and description that is independent of the actual package. So if they do not pass the tests, they should be simple to modify. > Comments welcome. Nitpicks especially, since much of this is already > quite nitpicky. ;) I would rather trust you with these clean-ups than go through all of the changes myself... I think they fall under the "one may push simple changes" provision anyway. Andreas