On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:24, Daniel B. wrote in part:
> Debian seems to use the word "dependency" backwards a lot, making
> things confusing and hard to understand.
[...]
> If A depends on B, then A is a
> dependency (A is dependent on B). B is _not_ a dependency of A.
The word 'dependency' can denote the relation between A and B ;
then it isn't oriented one way or the other, e.g., 'There is a
dependency between A and B'. To indicate the orientation you have
to say something like 'A depends on B'.
I think you make a worthwhile point that in some cases the
direction of the dependency should be indicated more clearly.
> In Debian (documentation, executable output, e-mail), uses of
> "dependency" in sense 1 are usually fine.
>
> However, uses in sense 2 are usually backwards (see bugs 212028,
> 212013, and especially 212034, which also shows how weak an
> understanding some Debian developers have of the word).
You meant #212031.
> Since merely using "dependency" correctly would be ambiguous given
> all the incorrect usage, Debian should probably refer to "depended-on
> package" (or library, etc., as the case may be). That construct would
> be unambiguous and perfectly clear (and wouldn't be much longer than
> "dependency").
Suppose we are talking about A. Then your complaint is that
A's dependencies
is ambiguous between denoting the packages that depend on A and
the packages upon which A depends. I don't see how
A's depended-on packages
is any clearer. Actually it seems worse to me. I suggest using
packages upon which A depends
and
packages that depend on A
wherever the ambiguity matters.
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
