On Thu, Oct 01, 1998 at 02:43:29AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote: > > Branden, in your suggested patch, you say: > > <!-- aph: the APT documentation calls your sections "components" and > your subsections "sections" -- either this reference should change or > APT should --> > > Let me clarify and justify how I am using the terminology. I'm going > into some depth here, and bringing it up on the Policy list, since > this is the second time I've been "corrected" about the use of terms. [...] > Needless to say, I've backed out the apt-ish changes you suggested for > the developer's reference. If you would like the apt terms generally > adopted, then you should lobby the Policy group. If not, please file > a bug against apt for muddling the waters even further. I wasn't attempting to imply you were wrong, just pointing out the need for consistency. It doesn't matter that much to me which scheme we go with (though frankly I find "sub"-this and "sub"-that a bit bureaucratic), so long as it goes for everything. If it is APT that should change then someone needs to talk to Jason Gunthorpe -- I don't know what extent apt itself would need its messages changed, but it's my job to change the manpages, so when a decision is made, someone please notify me. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | Purdue University | Music is the brandy of the damned. branden@purdue.edu | -- George Bernard Shaw http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpu_QUVP2CzQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature