Justin B Rye wrote: > There are a couple of stylesheet issue here (DevRef recommends > against leading capitalisation and articles in synopses), but more > significantly, the wording confuses /bin/gzip with gzip_*.deb > throughout: > * It claims that the package "is" the utility/compression tool. No, > it "provides" that executable, and a handful of others.
The typical way the package's description will be displayed is: gzip - The GNU compression utility This is the standard GNU file compression utility, which is also the default compression tool for Debian. It typically operates on files with names ending in '.gz'. In which context both the short and long description make perfect sense; they're referring to gzip, not the package. (I've always admired this particular package description for its brevity, FWIW.) > * The second paragraph explicitly states that the package can > decompress things, and that just isn't true. "This package" and "the software contained in this package" are equvilant. > * And yet reading "it" as /bin/gzip is still awkward, because that > executable _doesn't_ typically operate on files with names > ending in ".gz": Operation on files can include both reading them, and writing them. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
