Hi, Quoting Ben Finney (2017-01-01 23:37:19) > Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes: > > I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word "depender" in > > place of "reverse dependency"? > > I don't know a simple term in English that carries that meaning. > > To me, “depender” feel like a neologism and does not make me confident > the reader would know what is meant. I vote −1 to that term. > > The adjective “dependent” is IMO fine, so perhaps the noun phrase > “dependent package” is a good candidate. It's not the single word you're > looking for, but maybe it is unambiguous for the purpose? at a time where I was also wondering whether it would make sense to have some common terminology for all these things I wrote up this wiki page: https://wiki.debian.org/DependencyHell In the section "Specifying the object of a dependency relation" you can see three answers for what you are asking that I have seen used in the wild. Contributions to that page welcome. :) cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature