suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 11:26:07AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> 
> I'd support a motion to replace "dependency" by "requisite" in port and
> package management tools to remove the ambiguity.

I think that's a terrible idea.  If we are going to change the terms used
for such things, we should angle more toward an E-Prime approach to
phrasing in such cases.  Don't misunderstand -- I think that trying to
write or speak in E-Prime all the time is an even worse idea.  There are
contexts where it's a great idea, though, and this is one of them.  Using
terms like "dependency" and "requisite" in this context tends toward
tortuous sentence construction and other Byzantine absurdities.

If we're going to change the phrasing, go with this like "Foo depends on
bar," and "Bar requires foo."  Aruing over whether it should be "Foo is a
dependency of bar," or "Foo is a requisite of bar," utterly misses the
most important point here: both of them suck.

By the way, "dependency" in simplest terms just means that the thing in
question is dependent or subordinate upon something else.  That, to me,
means that "stale dependency" says the dependency information for the
dependent port is stale.  That doesn't sound wrong at all.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20110903/1ebc5a1c/attachment.pgp