Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote: > Description: Standard Widget Toolkit for GTK+ Java library > > Having a look at the short description itself one could misunderstand it as > too much capitalisation. Actually it does not obey the Developer's Reference > recommendations (2): It repeats the package name.
No it doesn't - the package name is "libswt-gtk-3-java". This is the *expansion* of that name, which handily also serves as an adequate short description, and which is entitled to capitalise "Standard Widget Toolkit" here just as much as it is in the first line of the long description. > And though its upstream's > fault (3) the package name itself is too generic. It makes sense to translate > it. I don't see how your proposal makes it less generic by dropping the uniquely identifying feature that it is (or claims to be) the *standard* toolkit. Now, I can see how a synopsis that does double duty as a description of the software and an explanation of its abbreviated name is going to make life difficult for translators, but that's not enough of a reason to prohibit it in the original English. Just translate it as a pure explanation, without any extra uppercase, and demote the why-the-name hint into the long description. libswt-gtk-3-java makes this easy by putting a more explicit expansion of SWT right where you want one! > The Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT) is a fast and rich GUI toolkit for the > Java programming language. SWT provides efficient, portable and fast > access to native controls and user interface facilities on the platforms > where it has been implemented. > > It's very much appreciated that you did *not* copy the upstream description > verbatim. "For" sounds like geek speech to me. Perhaps I have a German point > of view at the description. I'm afraid so; to me a "toolkit for Java" seems unremarkable. Notice that "GUI toolkit" is *not* capitalised as "GUI ToolKit", which signals to anglophone readers that it *isn't* serving as an expansion of the TLA "GTK" (which is really the "GIMP ToolKit"). If we imposed a rule forbidding the "inline expansion" style demonstrated in the synopsis, we'd be making it impossible to draw this sort of useful distinction. > This package includes the SWT JAR libraries. > > Are you sure that Jon Doe knows what a JAR (4) is? (Sorry for citing a German > source.) Well, this is a runtime library package; if John Doe sees it in the package repositories and doesn't understand what it's for, he can assume he doesn't need to know - on Debian, it'll be pulled in automatically if his system needs it for anything. Of course, to look at it the other way, anybody who can make any real use of this information probably doesn't need to be told that runtime libraries for Java are distributed as zipfiles with a .jar extension, so there's no real need to put that information in every package description any more than we mention .so files for all the C libraries. -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.