Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:28:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Lars Eighner <portsuser@larseighner.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, Sergey Matveychuk <sem@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation Message-ID: <4E61BB11.9070007@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109021657410.1576@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc> References: <201109011333.p81DX2sN081775@fire.js.berklix.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109021657410.1576@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/02/2011 14:58, Lars Eighner wrote: > The main thing here, of course, is that ports uses "dependency" in the > exact > opposite of its normal English sense (just as twitter uses "following" in > the exact opposite of its normal English sense). > > In normal Engish 'X is a dependency of Y' means Y is necessary for X (X > depends on Y) I'm not sure why you believe this to be true. Can you give examples from non-technical English prose, and some dictionary definitions to back up your claim? Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E61BB11.9070007>