Bug#674523: apt-get manpage: please document option --solver
Control: severity -1 minor
Control: tags -1 - patch
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:01:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> Patch attached. I didn't update the .po files yet because I supposed
> there might be a way to automate the c+p of the English parts, which
> I'll defer to you guys.
I have that patched locally too, that's not a big deal. The big deal is
documenting the other options properly and not refer to the .txt file
for developers that describes the entire protocol.
The patch is wrong on another level as well. If you had read the
manual page, you would have noticed that there is a list of options.
I have something like:
diff --git a/doc/apt-get.8.xml b/doc/apt-get.8.xml
index 4c34b29..a4c2a52 100644
--- a/doc/apt-get.8.xml
+++ b/doc/apt-get.8.xml
@@ -428,6 +428,13 @@
Configuration Item: <literal>APT::Get::Only-Upgrade</literal>.</para></listitem>
</varlistentry>
+
+ <varlistentry><term><option>--solver </option></term>
+ <listitem><para>Use the specified external solver. A binary with that
+ name must exist in the path configured at Dir::Bin::solvers.
+ Configuration Item: <literal>APT::Solver</literal>.</para></listitem>
+ </varlistentry>
+
<varlistentry><term><option>--allow-downgrades</option></term>
<listitem><para>This is a dangerous option that will cause apt to continue
without prompting if it is doing downgrades. It
I also have no intention to manipulate the entity files for a simple niche
option.
Also, the dump solver, I'm not sure what's going on there, I think there's
a timing bug, but it should work.
>
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
> > Control: severity -1 minor
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2016-08-18 12:49 Ximin Luo:
> >> Package: apt
> >> Version: 1.3~rc1
> >> Followup-For: Bug #674523
> >> Control: severity -1 important
> >>
> >> Hi, I'm bumping the severity for this because it's many years old, and it is
> >> hiding an important feature from users.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > If anything, being present for many years is an indication that it's not
> > that urgent/important, specially not when nobody felt that it was
> > important enough to work on it or submit patches.
> >
>
> I disagree.
>
> *I* think it's important. Probably nobody felt it was important,
> because they didn't know that the option exists, because it's
> undocumented.
Nobody cares what you think is important. This bug does not have
an important severity.
important: "a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package,
without rendering it completely unusable to everyone."
minor: "a problem which doesn't affect the package's usefulness, and is
presumably trivial to fix."
>
> On another point: Debian Developers should not be expected to act as a
> developer *for every single package*; that would be ridiculous, not
> scalable, implies no DD should ever file any bug. From the point of
> view of APT, I am an ordinary user.
>
> A simple "please submit a patch, I don't have time to work on this
> myself" would have been sufficient, instead of convolutedly arguing
> "you shouldn't have touched this bug in the first place".
Don't raise severities to absurd levels and people won't get
angry at you.
--
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.
Reply to: