GNU bug report logs - #37410
[PATCH] Several doc fixes in package.el

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#37410: closed ([PATCH] Several doc fixes in package.el)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 21:15:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 21 Sep 2019 23:14:35 +0200
with message-id <CADwFkmkk2wP=+0yZuS+ovGrH4rT_UO5MddhQOJsgV5sLQLaOAg <at> mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#37410: [PATCH] Several doc fixes in package.el
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #37410,
regarding [PATCH] Several doc fixes in package.el
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
37410: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=37410
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Several doc fixes in package.el
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:01:17 +0200

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Seeing as the documentation in package.el leaves much to be desired, I
spent some time adding doc strings and fixing checkdoc and stylistic
errors.  I've attached a patch with my results, which should improve
the situation a little bit at least.  Is this okay to install?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

[0001-Several-doc-fixes-in-package.el.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 37410-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37410: [PATCH] Several doc fixes in package.el
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 23:14:35 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> Thanks for your detailed review.  I have attached an updated patch.

No more comments in a week, so I've now pushed this as commit b86bc62ca5.

> >>  (defun package-install-file (file)
> >> -  "Install a package from a file.
> >> +  "Install package from FILE.
> >
> > And this?
>
> I think the original is wordy for no reason, and imprecise: We do not
> install just "a package" in general, but specifically the package
> pointed to by FILE.  But if I'm the only one who feels that the terse
> version is better, I'm willing to concede that point.

In the end, I stuck with:

    "Install a package from FILE."

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.