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

Re: Request for Review: APT manpages

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 01:19:14PM +0000, Justin B Rye wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > You might still remember the last time we talked about apt manpages:
> I have machines to do that for me.

All hail to our artificial overlords!

> > #: cmdline/apt.cc
> > msgid ""
> > "Usage: apt [options] command\n"
> > "\n"
> > "apt is a commandline package manager and provides commands for\n"
> > "searching and managing as well as querying information about packages.\n"
> > "It provides the same functionality as the specialized APT tools,\n"
> > "like apt-get and apt-cache, but enables options more suitable for\n"
> > "interactive use by default.\n"
> > msgstr ""
> Which specialised APT tools are like apt-get and apt-cache?  apt
> doesn't provide the same functionality as apt-mark, for instance, does
> it?  If it's intended as an exhaustive list I would recommend just
>                                   "[...] the specialized APT tools\n"
>   "apt-get and apt-cache, [...]
> If we're allowing for the possibility that it *will* swallow apt-mark,
> then I suppose that's
>                                   "[...] the specialized APT tools,\n"
>   "such as apt-get and apt-cache, [...]

apt is probably not going to swallow apt-mark as such, but it is also
likely to not stop with just apt-get and -cache, so I am opting for
possibilities as an exhausting list would eventually annoy translators.

> > #: cmdline/apt-cdrom.cc
> > msgid ""
> > "Usage: apt-cdrom [options] command\n"
> > "\n"
> > "apt-cdrom is used to add CDROM's, USB flashdrives and other removable\n"
> > "media types as package sources to APT. The mount point and device\n"
> > "information is taken from apt.conf(5), udev(7) and fstab(5).\n"
> > msgstr ""
> I normally recommend not putting an apostrophe in "CDROMs", but for
> consistency with apt-cdrom's existing messages I'll leave it.

This is actually the only message which says "CDROM" instead of "CD-ROM"
as far as I can see and some of those instances are "CD-ROMs", none is
"CD-ROM's", so I am changing to "CD-ROMs".

> Similarly, you've got two lists that could take an extra "Harvard
> comma" here, but if you're consistently not using that standard then
> never mind.

It seems indeed like apt is consistently not using it (I am pretty sure
its ignorance rather than a conscious decision), so I will indeed skip
on Harvard commas.

> > #: apt-pkg/acquire-item.cc
> > msgid ""
> > "Updating such a repository securily is impossible and therefore disabled by "
> > "default."
> > msgstr ""
> Typo - s/securily/securely/
> Is this actually talking about updating (modifying) a repository, or
> does it mean running an "update" reading *from* such a repository?  I
> think it should be
>  "Updating from such a repository securely is impossible and therefore disabled "
>  "by default."
> Wait a minute, though - it isn't updating securely that's disabled,
> it's updating.  Or maybe the repository...
>  "It is impossible to update securely from such a repository, so it is disabled "
>  "by default."
> or
>  "Updating from such a repository cannot be done securely, so it is disabled "
>  "by default."
> or how about just
>  "Updating from such a repository is insecure, so it is disabled by default."

Some context might help:
# apt update
[… many Ign/Get/Hit/Err lines …]
E: The repository '$APTARCHIVE' does not have a Release file.
N: Updating such a repository securely is impossible and therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.

So, what it is trying to say is: APT wanted to update this repository, but it
couldn't in a secure way, so we ignore whatever we got from this repository and
use the data we already have on disk for this repository. There is an option to
allow apt to get the updates anyway ignoring the security aspect (which for
backward compatibility reasons is enabled by default for apt-get – at least for
stretch it will be that way) turning this error into a warning:

# apt-get update
[… many Ign/Get/Hit/Err lines …]
W: The repository '$APTARCHIVE' does not have a Release file.
N: Data from such a repository can't be authenticated and is therefore potentially dangerous to use.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.

The matter is rather technical and complicated, but the general takeaway should
be that this is superbad and if someone really wants details go read the manpage.

I would take your last suggestion, but with all these options now I am not even
sure anymore if such a line wouldn't suggest that the repository is disabled
(forever), rather than apt just ignoring its existence for self-protection as
long as it isn't behaving as apt expects it.

> > #: cmdline/apt-extracttemplates.cc
> > msgid ""
> > "Usage: apt-extracttemplates file1 [file2 ...]\n"
> > "\n"
> > "apt-extracttemplates is used to extract config and template files\n"
> > "from debian packages. It is used mainly by debconf(1) to prompt for\n"
> > "configuration questions before installation of packages.\n"
> > msgstr ""
> Using lowercase "debian" to mean ".deb-format" is odd but seems to be
> an established convention.
> (I occasionally complain that by the time these files are on my system
> being handed to debconf it's crazy to call them "templates", but it's
> far too late to do anything about that now...)

(There is the multi-year old idea that this functionality shouldn't be provided
by apt, but by dpkg and dpkg maintainers want to eventually do that… (nothing
is as permanent as a temporary solution) so given the right timing you might
actually have the chance to rewrite history and remove this problem.)

Everything else applied and pushed to git already. Thanks!

Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: