On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:10:40PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > The -a=... version is not documented in the manual, only -a alone,
Compare -t, which also doesn't say -t=foo. Probably mostly due to -t foo working as well or just because the manpages like their inconsistencies and would deserve some love, but who has the time to not just complain but also actually write all of it… (reordered for posterity) > -a, --host-architecture > This option controls the architecture packages are built for by > apt-get source --compile and how cross-builddependencies are > satisfied. > > There are 2 verbs "controls" and "are built". And I don't see how > to parse "for by". A package is "built for" the given (with -a) host architecture by "apt-get source --compile" – aka its instructed to cross-compile a package for the given host architecture instead of doing a "normal" compile where host and build architecture are the same. So, "apt-get source -b -a armhf foo" will (simplified) build a "foo_armhf.deb" on your (likely amd64) machine to be used on another (probably less powerful) armhf machine. Similar for build-dep, just that this won't build anything but interprets certain dependencies differently. Using the option properly requires preparations that would fill their own manpage to explain properly and its certainly not APTs place to do that as it is just a tiny cog in the cross-machinery. > Still, I don't see what this option does. So, long story short: You would if you would need that option, but you don't need it, so you don't. --print-uris prints URIs; nowhere is explained what URI stands for, it is just assumed that people who need it will know. Hey, quick, what is a "build profile" and can you name a few? Now go and ask that question another user and see how that goes. > By default is it not set which means that the host > architecture is the same as the build architecture (which is > defined by APT::Architecture). Configuration Item: > APT::Get::Host-Architecture. > In the next sentence: "is it". Should this be > "it is"? The comma is missing before "which". Perhaps it should, "is it not" has the hint of a question. In German I would write such a sentence without a comma as the added phrase isn't [that] optional, but not sure if a German – or English – teacher would actually agree on me claiming "definition phrase", which are not separated by commas in both languages. Could easily be done without a which if we were really trying. Doesn't matter that much through as I would agree that the manpage(s) need a revamp, but certainly not by me and not based on this. For this specific option in particular, 99% of the user base are probably better served if we were to remove its documentation entirely. What about the 1%? Well, they deserve to write the patches to improve the manpage and potentially fixup the translations (depending on how much they reword here). [Case in point, the option as documented doesn't work for years and nobody noticed – because 1% was an overstatement already; fixed in git] Best regards David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
