On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:47:34 +0200 Holger Wansing wrote: > Justin B Rye <[email protected]> wrote: > > Holger Wansing wrote: > > >> -<prgn/apt-get/ and <prgn/apt-cache/ commands got an equivalent via > > >> +<prgn/apt-get/ and <prgn/apt-cache/ commands have an equivalent via > > > I don't see the improvement here, so omitting this. > > It's a non-native-speakerism. The current FAQ says that the commands > > "got" (="did acquire") an equivalent. What it's trying to say is > > that the commands "have" (="do possess") an equivalent. > Yes, that was exactly what I wanted to say when I wrote that sentence: > that there is a new binary named apt, introduced with Jessie, which has said > advantages. > And that's why I like the "got" :-)
you can use "got" now but you'll need to change to "have" on around 2020 or someone say you as editor, you are still living 2010's? > > >> @@ -321,8 +321,8 @@ > > >> status symbol (explained in the header), the package name, the version > > >> which is <em>installed</em>, and a brief description. > > >> -<p>To learn the status of packages whose names match the string any > > >> -pattern beginning with "foo" by executing the command: > > >> +<p>To learn the status of packages whose names match any > > >> +pattern beginning with "foo", run the command: > > > Maybe we should change "learn" into something like "query" here? > > > Justin? see -- victory no need to CC me :-)
