Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > Oi you lot!
Wassaaaap!? > I wonder, would it be better if we switched to using the word > "depender" in place of "reverse dependency"? I don't know a simple term in English that carries that meaning. To me, “depender” feel like a neologism and does not make me confident the reader would know what is meant. I vote −1 to that term. The adjective “dependent” is IMO fine, so perhaps the noun phrase “dependent package” is a good candidate. It's not the single word you're looking for, but maybe it is unambiguous for the purpose? -- \ “I still have my Christmas Tree. I looked at it today. Sure | `\ enough, I couldn't see any forests.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney
