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

Bug#809160: apt: [doc] apt.conf(5) man page (file apt.conf.5.xml in source) possible minor mistakes



On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Beatrice Torracca wrote:
> «The value should be a normal URI to a text file, expect that package specific data is replaced with the placeholder <literal>@CHANGEPATH@</literal>. The value for it is: 1. if the package is from a component (e.g. <literal>main</literal>) this is the first part otherwise it is omitted, 2. the first letter of source package name, expect if the source package name starts with '<literal>lib</literal>' in which case it will be the first four letters. 3. The complete source package name. 4. the complete name again and  5. the source version.»
> 
> I think both occurrence of "expect" should be instead "except".

Right!

> Afterwards in the same page there is:
> 
> «Package action lines consist of five fields in Version 2: old version, direction of version change (&lt; for upgrades, &gt; for downgrades, = for no change), new version, action.»
> 
> Unless I am missing something those are only 4 fields, not 5 (1 old version, 2 direction of change, 3 new version, 4 action). (Maybe it was related to Version 3 with the Multiarch field too??, just a thought, I am not sure).

You aren't missing something, the sentence is: The first (and therefore
fifth) field is the package name…


> Very shortly after that there is a quote missing (the opening quote for the type "foreign" in
> «<para>In Version 3 after each version field follows the architecture
>      of this version, which is "-" if there is no version, and a field showing
>      the MultiArch type "same", foreign", "allowed" or "none".»

Added.


> I hope I am not wasting your time.

Of course you aren't. These silly mistakes shouldn't be in files we hand
out – as that is wasting *your* time… so, sorry about that & thanks for
the report and [informal] patch!


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: