Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:31:31PM -0400, Daniel B. wrote: > > Colin Watson wrote: > > > I'm certain that trying to reverse it now would sow confusion > > > among the entire developer population. > > > > 1. The current state is already confusing. > > I don't find it so in the least.
That's not a valid counterargument. (Of course the people who think they know what they're talking about won't find it confusing. The problem occurs in the boundary between people who know the meaning of the word and the Debian, etc., people who use the same word but use it to mean an opposite.) > > 2. Fixing the problem doesn't require using "dependency" in the correct > > sense; it only requires _not_ using it backwards. For example, > > "depended-on package" (or "library," etc., as the case may be) would > > be unambiguous and not much longer. > > That's a serious pain in the backside when you're discussing > dependencies. What's so hard about saying, say, "apt installs depended-on packages"? Most occurrences of "dependency" in Debian documentation seem to refer to the relationship of dependence (dictionary sense 1) and don't need to changed. It's only the other occurrences that are backwards and should be fixed. Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
