Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Le December 27, 2007 04:39:34 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> > Le December 27, 2007 03:47:40 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
> >> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> >>> Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
> >>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> >>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez
> >>>
> >>> écrit :
> >>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> >>>>>>> Package: www.debian.org
> >>>>>>> Severity: minor
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227
> >>>>>>> contains
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the
> >>>>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual
> >>>>>>> page) to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are,
> >>>>>>> suggesting that one can use one or the other. This should probably
> >>>>>>> read "by pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the
> >>>>>>> sources.list(5) manual page) to [...]".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to
> >>>>>> use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem
> >>>>> is precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not
> >>>>> use APT, which is already a common misconception.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever
> >>>> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt).
> >>>
> >>> I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem.
> >>> The announcement says this:
> >>> "You can use A or B."
> >>> B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only
> >>> choice is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end
> >>> to use.
> >>>
> >>> It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager
> >>> (such as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're
> >>> pointing APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package manager
> >>> to a source indirectly.
> >>>
> >>> The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or
> >>> Linux to replace Windows.
> >>
> >> No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library.
> >
> > Quoting English Wikipedia:
> >> APT is a C++ library of functions (known as libapt) which are used by
> >> front-end programs for dealing with packages [...]
> >
> > As you can see, APT can be considered as libapt. apt can also be
> > considered as the apt package, but it still contains libapt, so apt
> > either is or contains libapt. Therefore, suggesting that one can use
> > aptitude without using apt is misleading.
>
> Last time: For *end users* apt is a package manager.
You mean a libapt front-end? If so, which one is it?
Reply to: