Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"

To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"
From: Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@debianpt.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 08:44:05 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] cdb0bb68-4111-c0ef-5549-9d68c582f705@debianpt.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20170102080033.nh4lmf3smpovsve2@x>
References: <[🔎] 20170102080033.nh4lmf3smpovsve2@x>



On 02-01-2017 08:00, Josh Triplett wrote:

"packages that depend on"

+1

Reply to:

References:
- Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"
  - From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>

Prev by Date: Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"
Next by Date: Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems
Previous by thread: Re: wording: "reverse dependence" vs "depender"
Next by thread: Re: Bug#791828: dput-ng: Please make coinstallable with dput
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread