Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/08/14 08:47 AM, hasufell wrote:
> William Hubbs:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>> 
>> *snip*
>> 
>>> These links might be helpful:
>>> 
>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914
>>>
>>>
>>> 
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976
>>> 
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still
>>> really want to enforce this).
>> 
>> I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this
>> a repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but
>> there was a feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and
>> shouldn't be worried about.
>> 
> 
> That thread is pretty odd.
> 
> First, a sentence does not need to have a predicate. I know that
> for 99% sure in german and the english wikipedia article seems to
> suggest the same. Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Second, there are valid descriptions that are full ordinary
> sentences without referencing ${PN}: "Access a working SSH
> implementation by means of a library".
> 
> In addition, repoman doesn't check for full sentences that
> reference ${PN}, such as: "Portage is the package management and
> distribution system for Gentoo".
> 
> So we have another (useless) repoman warning with false positives.
> 

TL;DR -- is there any technical reason as to why a DESCRIPTION ending
in '.' is bad?  Other than the fact that it adds 3000 unnecessary
bytes to the portage tree?  IE, does it have the possibility of
throwing off tools that strictly adhere to some random spec (although
it doesn't seem like PMS declares anything bad about this either)??

Perhaps we need to have a less-important repoman warning level
(something that can be quieted with a flag) for things like this?  In
terms of DESCRIPTION consistency I don't see it being a bad thing that
we have the warning, but i also don't see a point in changing the
entire tree to get rid of 3000 bytes, esp. since the ChangeLog entries
added to the tree will add at least 30,000 bytes :)





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqHIYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCvXQD7BQYtciffNZDCM03vMSlNAgQh
s4j3dw3tL9VDe/oiq7kA/25lVdaRqAc/mbdiI5surUOG9a0J+1sk/nrVft4ocnSs
=8273
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----