[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#212028: marked as done (apt-cache uses "dependency" backards )

Your message dated Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:51:13 +0200
with message-id <20061007105113.GL3049@df7cb.de>
and subject line "dependency" used backwards
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.4

apt-cache and its manual page uses the word "dependency" backwards.
This error makes the documentation hard to understand.

Per the The American Heritage Dictionary (via
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dependency), a dependency
    2. Something dependent or subordinate. 

That is, if A depends on B, A is a dependency of B.  (B is not a 
dependency of A.)

Note that the manual page uses "dependency" backwards:

    Forward (normal) dependencies are those packages upon which the 
    package in question depends...

apt-cache itself uses "dependency" backwards also:

    $ apt-cache showpkg apt
    Package: apt
    Reverse Depends: 
    Dependencies: 0.5.4 - libc6 (2 2.2.3-7) libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 (0 (null))
       dpkg-dev (0 (null)) libapt-pkg-doc (3 0.3.7) libapt-pkg-dev (3 0.3.7) 

If apt-cache said "Depends on:" instead of "Dependencies:", it would be

Daniel Barclay

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

I'm closing this bug since it hasn't got any input since ages. The
related discussion in #212034 (closed) also indicates that #212049 is
a non-bug.

cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: