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

[Matthias Andree]

Am 03.09.2011 09:56, schrieb Lars Eighner:

> The correct word for what computer people call a dependency is 'requisite.'
> Perl is a requisite of my script.  My script is a dependency of perl.
> 
...
> Because programmers are such geniuses, the
> idea of consulting working writers before they begin such a project seems
> laughable to them.
> 
> And that is why ports uses 'dependency' exactly backwards -- the authors
> are
> such geniuses that they cannot be bothered to open a dictionary for
> themselves.  I can think of a case in point.
> 
> Now it is possible that once upon a time there was a programmer who knew
> what dependency meant, and he might have said something like "My script has
> a dependency on perl."  That is accurate, but very awkward compared with
> "Perl is a requisite of my script." And perhaps that awkward expression was

Being a non-native speaker, I am nonetheless aware of the difference
between the rather noun-oriented style of my own native tongue, German,
and the rather verb-oriented style of English.  So, that latter quoted
phrase of yours could be rewritten as "My script requires Perl", and one
step further, "My script needs Perl" (not sure if you want to go that
last step). It's clear, there is no passive voice, the sentence starts
with the familiar, namely the script at the user's hand, does not need a
cumbersome of-possessive construct.

> It is a constant source of confusion for native speakers of English, and to
> a degree a source of amusement that documentation which has not yet been
> expressed in correct English is being translated into dozens of languages
> which take up space in machines that accept the default install.

It is not only a source of confusion for native speakers, but also to
non-native speakers.

I'd support a motion to replace "dependency" by "requisite" in port and
package management tools to remove the ambiguity.