has in PEAR status

[Jakub Bogusz]

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:23:43PM +0200, Adam Gołębiowski wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:50:01PM +0200, 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."

> > 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.e.

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

right?

> 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.

OK for me.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://cyber.cs.net.pl/~qboosh/