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

Re: Release notes

On 30 March 2013 07:35, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:37:12PM +0000, Justin B Rye wrote:
>> Justin B Rye wrote:
>> > Still it seems nobody's interested.  Would it help if I was more
>> > specific?  The chapter on upgrading has:
>> [...]
>> > Patch attached.
>> Going back to the aptitude non-olfactory mode nonsense, here's a patch
>> for that.
>> I'm standardising on "full-console mode", given that nobody has
>> suggested anything better.
> The reason no one has suggested anything better is that 'visual mode' is the
> *canonical name* for running aptitude in this mode.  Please don't have a
> proxy battle with the aptitude maintainer via the release notes - if you
> disagree with the name "visual mode", please get the aptitude documentation
> fixed *first*, rather than inventing inconsistent language that will be used
> only in the release notes.

Right, and I do not see how ‘visual mode’ is misleading?  By the way,
current aptitude manual prefers the term ‘visual interface’, ‘mode’ is
used only once and I have just changed that.

>> If you were about to object that the name isn't appropriate when you're in
>> an X session, bear in mind that we've already advised people not to run a
>> dist-upgrade that way.

So? X is not the only means of display visual user interfaces.

>> This patch also tweaks section 2.1.3:
>>   The preferred program for interactive package management from a
>>   terminal is _aptitude_. For a non-interactive command line interface
>>   for package management, it is recommended to use _apt-get_. [...]
>> Obviously, if I say "apt-get purge dbus", it won't perform that action
>> "non-interactively", it'll ask "Do you want to continue [Y/n]?" - it's
>> just that it won't use a persistent textual UI.  I'm rephrasing it as:
>>  The preferred program for interacting with the package database from
>>  a terminal is _aptitude_. For individual package management actions,
>>  it is recommended to use _apt-get_ on the command line. [...]
> I don't think this text is an improvement.  "Individual package management
> actions" does not read to me as covering an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' that
> upgrades every package on the system.  Nor do I think "interacting with the
> package database" is a useful description of when one should prefer aptitude
> vs. apt-get - *all* packgae management operations are "interacting with the
> package database".
> The only case where aptitude should be preferred over apt-get is where the
> user wishes to fine-tune the package manager's solution.  "Interactive" vs.
> "non-interactive" maps that as well as anything else I can think of, but
> perhaps you can think of another way to express this.

Well said.

Reply to: