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

Bug#458029: marked as done ([doc] package descriptions are unclear)

Your message dated Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:58:05 +0200
with message-id <20150813155805.GA18005@crossbow>
and subject line Re: package descriptions are unclear
has caused the Debian Bug report #458029,
regarding [doc] package descriptions are unclear
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
458029: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=458029
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.7.6
Severity: normal

The packages descriptions are unclear, particularly about what apt contains.
The short description is "Advanced front-end for dpkg".

The extended description contains

This is Debian's next generation front-end for the dpkg package manager. It 
provides the apt-get utility and APT dselect method that provides a simpler, 
safer way to install and upgrade packages.

This is OK for apt-get and other programs, but there is no mention of libapt. 
Nothing indicates that APT is also a back-end for APT front-ends such as 
aptitude and Synaptic. This is rather confusing, because the primary role of 
apt is and should become more and more to be a back-end for GUI package 
managers and other more refined console tools.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi

On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> The packages descriptions are unclear, particularly about what apt contains.
> The short description is "Advanced front-end for dpkg".

In the meantime the descriptions were entirely rewritten, so a critic
would need to be rewritten entirely as well, which if there is still
something to critizise is better done in a new bugreport not obstructed
with our old mistakes. Hence closing.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: