Re: proposed changes to debian-faq
Holger Wansing wrote:
> Justin B Rye <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Holger Wansing wrote:
>>>> <p>Starting with Debian Jessie, some frequently used
>>>> -<prgn/apt-get/ and <prgn/apt-cache/ commands got an equivalent via
>>>> +<prgn/apt-get/ and <prgn/apt-cache/ commands have an equivalent via
>>> I don't see the improvement here, so omitting this.
>> It's a non-native-speakerism. The current FAQ says that the commands
>> "got" (="did acquire") an equivalent. What it's trying to say is
>> that the commands "have" (="do possess") an equivalent.
> Yes, that was exactly what I wanted to say when I wrote that sentence:
> that there is a new binary named apt, introduced with Jessie, which has said
> And that's why I like the "got" :-)
It doesn't work with simple past "got", though; we're not talking
about something that's over and done with, we're talking about the
present-day effects of this new binary being added, so it's
present-perfect - they "have gotten" or more likely "have gained" an
equivalent. And since we've already explicitly said when the change
happened, we wouldn't lose any information if we just said "have".
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package