has in PEAR status

[Adam Gołębiowski]

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> [moved this old thread to pld-devel-en, maybe here we could find some
>  consensus... as "This class has in PEAR status: %{_status}" looks
>  very ugly to me]
> 
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:45:19PM +0100, Adam Gołębiowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:24:11PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > > (1) "In PEAR this package has status: %{_status}."
> > > (2) "In PEAR status of this package is: %{_status}."
> > > (3) "This package status is %{_status} in PEAR."
> > > (4) "Status of this package is %{_status} in PEAR."
> > > 
> > > Jeśli (1), to chyba lepiej brzmiałoby
> > > (1a) "In PEAR this package has %{_status} status."
> > > 
> > > Albo może (1b) "In PEAR this package is in %{_status} state."
> > > 
> > > A może w ogóle zrezygnować z "In PEAR" i zostawić
> > > (1c) "This package is in %{_status} state."?
> > 
> > "PEAR's status of this package is: %{_status}" ?
> 
> Which of the above versions of package status information
> (i.e. the quoted strings) sounds/looks better? Any other proposals?

Oh, how good you've brought that up. Few weeks ago I spoked about that
with havner's girlfriend, who's studying English. As far as I remember,
she chose second possibility. 

I will change this in weekend, unless someone objects.

Also, I assume that we will introduce following change to all pecl
packages:

	In PECL status of this package is: %{_status}.

PECL split up from PEAR few months ago.

-- 
http://www.mysza.eu.org/ | Everybody needs someone sure, someone true,
   PLD Linux developer   | Everybody needs some solid rock, I know I do.