Bug#212034: Debina Perl Policy manual uses "dependency"backards

["Daniel B." <dsb@smart.net>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:33:05 -0400, Daniel B <dsb@smart.net> said:
> 
> > Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.6.1
> 
> > The Debian Perl Policy manual
> > (file:/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/perl-policy.html/ch-perl.html)
> > uses the word "dependency" backwards.  This error makes the
> > documentation hard to understand.
> 
> > Per the The American Heritage Dictionary (via
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dependency), a dependency
> > is:
> > 1. Dependence.
> 
>         This is the sense meant.

That is true for most occurrences of "dependency" in the document, but 
not in the first occurrence I reported.


> ======================================================================
> >From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
> 
>  Dependency \De*pend"en*cy\, n.; pl. {Dependencies}.
>     1. State of being dependent; dependence; state of being
>        subordinate; subordination; concatenation; connection;
>        reliance; trust.
>        [1913 Webster]
> 
>        So that they may acknowledge their dependency on the
>        crown of England.      --Bacon.
>        [1913 Webster]
> ======================================================================

If you don't understand that there's a sense 2, you don't have standing
to argue here.


>         So if they have a dependency on the crown, it is they who need
>  the countenance of the crown, not the other way around.

Right. 

But then given that colony I has a dependency on crown B (dictionary 
sense 1), then colony I is a dependency of crown B (sense 2).  Crown B 
is not a dependency of I.

Therefore, if package I has a dependency on package B, then I is a 
dependency of B.  B is not a dependency of I.  (B is a depended-on
package.)


> > The Debian Perl Policy manual, in section 1.1, says:
> 
> >   Only one package may contain the /usr/bin/perl binary and that
> >   package must either be perl or a dependency of that package (see
> >   Base Package, Section 1.2).
> 
>         Ie, a package for which a dependence relation ship exists,
>  something that perl depends on.

First of all, note that your first clause and your second are not same 
thing:

The phrase "package for which a dependence relationship exists"
refers to both perl and the other package (they're both in the 
relationship).

The phase "something that perl depends on" refers to just the other
package.

Therefore, since one phrase refers to two packages and the other phrase
refers only one package, those two phrases are not equivalent.

So what were you trying to point out?  I already said that the manual 
is trying to refer to something that perl depends on:

> > Apparently, the intent was to say that perl or one of the packages
> > perl depends on must contain that binary.  




> > However, as written, it
> > says that some package that depends on perl must contains the
> > binary.
> 
>         Nope, perl has a dependency on this package X; like someone has
>  a dependency on the crown of england.

Are you paying attention?

I know that perl has a dependency on package X.  I didn't say that it 
didn't.  

I said that DOCUMENTATION says the opposite.  Again, it says:

  Only one package may contain the /usr/bin/perl binary and that package
  must either be perl or a dependency of that package... 

Ack.  That's even more ambiguous than I noticed the first time.  Does
the second occurrence of "that package" refer to "one package," "that
package," or "perl"?

Assuming that means:

  Only one package may contain the /usr/bin/perl binary and that package
  must either be perl or a dependency of that perl... 

The phrase "a dependency of perl" means "something that depends on perl."  
It does not mean "something that perl depends on." 

Since what really happens relates to "something that perl depends on", 
the documentation is wrong.



Daniel
-- 
Daniel Barclay
dsb@smart.net