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

Bug#691281: apt-cache man page mentions wrong information



On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Beatrice Torracca <beatricet@libero.it> wrote:
> apt-cache man page in the description of the "stats" command says:
> " Total distinct versions is the number of package versions found
>                in the cache; this value is therefore at least equal to the
>                number of total package names."
[…]
> and as you can see the number of total distinct versions (37199) is
> lower than the number of total package names (47466)

As another data point the stats from my unstable system:
Total package names: 61946 (1239 k)
Total package structures: 142362 (7972 k)
  Normal packages: 89777
  Pure virtual packages: 5431
  Single virtual packages: 14493
  Mixed virtual packages: 3147
  Missing: 29514
Total distinct versions: 154957 (11.2 M)
…

So in some configurations the claim is actually full-filled [0].

But I guess the claim just comes from a time in which everything was
a bit simpler than it is now as the number will be at least equal to the
"normal packages" count - but adding virtuals (e.g. mail-transport-agent)
to the mix screws up the numbers, so on some systems the claim will
be true and on others it will be false.

Ignoring that for a minute I wonder though why we brother to talk about
the packages count here at all as the comparison doesn't seem to be too
useful to understand what this number really counts.

So, instead of fixing we might as-well should just remove these 1½ sentences.

Either way would be a string-change which I would like to avoid doing in
freeze, especially as it is a "minor" documentation thing, but suggestions
on how to fix this for Jessie are welcome.


In the mean time: Thanks for the report & best regards

David Kalnischkies


[0] I am not claiming that my configuration is a sane one. Quiet the
opposite actually: It is a multi-arch system with i386, amd64 and armel
enabled with squeeze, wheezy and sid sources …


Reply to: