Hello Justin, I *fully* agree with your corrections and diff file except for your choice of the short description. In my opinion it would be better to mention the fact that this package can "handle" software *and* hardware watchdogs. So I would prefer your second suggestion:
system health checker and software/hardware watchdog handler > > The ability to reboot will depend on the state of the machine and > > interrupts if the kernel software watchdog is used. > > If this is saying > > The kernel software watchdog's ability to reboot will depend on the > state of the machine and interrupts. > > ...then I think it would be clearer expressed that way. I assume that this is what it wants to say and fully agree with your suggestion. It's really expressed better this way. Best regards, Martin On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:52:44PM +0000, Justin B Rye wrote: > (I am not the maintainer, but I help out with description reviews on > the debian-l10n-english mailinglist, and I noticed this bug report.) > > Martin Teufel wrote: > > Important informations are missing in the long package description; the > > short description is (or can be) misleading > > too. This package/program can either be used as a software watchdog and/or > > can be used to "pet" a hardware watchdog. It > > isn't just a software watchdog (can be used otherwise -> bad short > > description) and the functionality to pet hardware > > watchdogs should be mentioned (at least) in the long description. > > > > The new package description in 5.10-1 and later is still unsatisfactory in > > my opinion. > > For a start, it's ungrammatical - "trigger" should be "triggers" or > "can trigger"! Plus, DevRef 6.2.2 recommends not capitalising the > first word of a synopsis. > > > It *really* should be mentioned that this package also provides an > > opportunity to "pet" hardware watchdogs. > > > > Here is my suggestion: > > > > short description: > > > > ################## > > > > System health checker that also trigger kernel watchdogs and may pet a > > hardware watchdog if available > > > > ################## > > That's much too long, too much like jargon, and still ungrammatical. > Is there a general term that could be used to describe both > "triggering" and "petting" a watchdog? I would suggest: > > system health checker and watchdog handler > > Or you might make it > > system health checker and software/hardware watchdog handler > > My patch goes for the simpler approach, on the principle that if you > don't specify, the reader can assume it means either kind; but I may > of course be displaying my ignorance of how watchdog functions. > > > long description: > > > > ################# > > > > The watchdog program writes to /dev/watchdog every ten seconds. If the > > device is opened but not written to within a minute, the machine will > > reboot. This feature is available when the kernel is built with > > 'software watchdog' support (standard in Debian kernels) or if the > > machine is equipped with a hardware watchdog. If a hardware watchdog is > > available, this package can also be used to "pet" it. > > Yes, there's room for that term here, and even for an explanation, but > there's no need to repeat the concept of "if a hardware watchdog is > available". I would suggest: > > The watchdog program writes to /dev/watchdog every ten seconds. If the > device is opened but not written to within a minute, the machine will > reboot. This feature is available when the kernel is built with > "software watchdog" support (standard in Debian kernels) or if the > machine is equipped with a hardware watchdog (in which case this > package can also be used to "pet" it, resetting its timer). > > (Standardising some punctuation details in the direction of the > debian-l10n-english "house style".) > > > The ability to reboot will depend on the state of the machine and > > interrupts if the kernel software watchdog is used. > > If this is saying > > The kernel software watchdog's ability to reboot will depend on the > state of the machine and interrupts. > > ...then I think it would be clearer expressed that way. > > > > > The watchdog tool itself runs several health checks and acts accordingly > > if the system is not in a good shape. > > That last paragraph has crept in since the last time this text passed > through d-l-e, and it could do with a couple of tweaks: > > The watchdog tool itself runs several health checks and acts > appropriately if the system is not in good shape. > > -- > JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian > sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
