On 2024-01-19 18:38:06 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> 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…
This is not the same thing. The -t option is listed only with an
argument, while there is a -a option *without* an argument:
apt-get [-asqdyfmubV] ... [-a=architecture] ...
^ here
Perhaps this is a mistake...
> (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.
OK, it took me some time to find how this sentence should be parsed.
In particular, I thought that this description was for the -a version
without an argument (see above), and the sentence couldn't have any
sense as a consequence.
BTW, in the option listing, whether an option takes an argument is
generally indicated. For instance, in the cp man page:
-S, --suffix=SUFFIX
override the usual backup suffix
And simpler sentences would be easier to understand, with the context
given first. For instance, something like
With "apt-get source --compile", packages are built for the
given architecture instead of [...]
Or more explicitly:
-a, --host-architecture=ARCH
With "apt-get source --compile", packages are built for
architecture ARCH instead of [...]
> 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.
If build-dep is also concerned by this option, this should be said.
> > 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.
Here, "which means..." relates to an entire statement ("it is not set"),
so that a comma is needed. See
https://guinlist.wordpress.com/tag/clause-referring-which/
"2. Relating to an Entire Statement
[...]
(c) Octavian defeated his enemies in battle, which enabled him to
become Roman Emperor.
/Which/ here refers to what /Octavian/ did, not the /battle/.
In this usage, /which/ is always needed instead of /who/ or /that/, it
always follows a comma, and it has a singular verb after it. [...]"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or this (in French):
https://www.anglaisfacile.com/exercices/exercice-anglais-2/exercice-anglais-26463.php
(this is the case where "which" is translated in French by "ce que"
or "ce qui", instead of just "que" or "qui" when "which" relates to
a noun).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
