On 30 March 2013 07:35, Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:37:12PM +0000, Justin B Rye wrote: >> Justin B Rye wrote: >> > Still it seems nobody's interested. Would it help if I was more >> > specific? The chapter on upgrading has: >> [...] >> > Patch attached. > >> Going back to the aptitude non-olfactory mode nonsense, here's a patch >> for that. > >> I'm standardising on "full-console mode", given that nobody has >> suggested anything better. > > The reason no one has suggested anything better is that 'visual mode' is the > *canonical name* for running aptitude in this mode. Please don't have a > proxy battle with the aptitude maintainer via the release notes - if you > disagree with the name "visual mode", please get the aptitude documentation > fixed *first*, rather than inventing inconsistent language that will be used > only in the release notes.
Right, and I do not see how ‘visual mode’ is misleading? By the way, current aptitude manual prefers the term ‘visual interface’, ‘mode’ is used only once and I have just changed that. > >> If you were about to object that the name isn't appropriate when you're in >> an X session, bear in mind that we've already advised people not to run a >> dist-upgrade that way. So? X is not the only means of display visual user interfaces. >> This patch also tweaks section 2.1.3: > >> The preferred program for interactive package management from a >> terminal is _aptitude_. For a non-interactive command line interface >> for package management, it is recommended to use _apt-get_. [...] > >> Obviously, if I say "apt-get purge dbus", it won't perform that action >> "non-interactively", it'll ask "Do you want to continue [Y/n]?" - it's >> just that it won't use a persistent textual UI. I'm rephrasing it as: > >> The preferred program for interacting with the package database from >> a terminal is _aptitude_. For individual package management actions, >> it is recommended to use _apt-get_ on the command line. [...] > > I don't think this text is an improvement. "Individual package management > actions" does not read to me as covering an 'apt-get dist-upgrade' that > upgrades every package on the system. Nor do I think "interacting with the > package database" is a useful description of when one should prefer aptitude > vs. apt-get - *all* packgae management operations are "interacting with the > package database". > > The only case where aptitude should be preferred over apt-get is where the > user wishes to fine-tune the package manager's solution. "Interactive" vs. > "non-interactive" maps that as well as anything else I can think of, but > perhaps you can think of another way to express this. Well said. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/can3vereluoyca92w9frqvntyq+yj5zjeyoks8xxe_j65qjo...@mail.gmail.com
