Your message dated Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:51:13 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line "dependency" used backwards
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: general
Version: n/a?
Debian seems to use the word "dependency" backwards a lot, making
things confusing and hard to understand.
Per the The American Heritage Dictionary (via
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dependency), a dependency
is:
1. Dependence.
2. Something dependent or subordinate.
3. A territory under the jurisdiction of a state of
which it does not form an integral part.
Note the "direction" of sense 2: If A depends on B, then A is a
dependency (A is dependent on B). B is _not_ a dependency of A.
In Debian (documentation, executable output, e-mail), uses of
"dependency" in sense 1 are usually fine.
However, uses in sense 2 are usually backwards (see bugs 212028,
212013, and especially 212034, which also shows how weak an
understanding some Debian developers have of the word).
Obviously, Debian documentation and tools (and developers) shouldn't
use "dependency" backwards.
(Well, that should be obvious, but if it isn't, consider the confusion
it generates. Given the international nature of Debian, consider
readers who aren't native speakers of English, trying to figure out
what "dependency" means in English and then trying to figure out what
Debian documentation/etc. is really saying.)
Since merely using "dependency" correctly would be ambiguous given
all the incorrect usage, Debian should probably refer to "depended-on
package" (or library, etc., as the case may be). That construct would
be unambiguous and perfectly clear (and wouldn't be much longer than
"dependency").
Daniel
--
Daniel Barclay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I'm closing this bug since it hasn't got any input since ages. The
related discussion in #212034 (closed) also indicates that #212049 is
a non-bug.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
